135 A.3d 365
Md.2016Background
- The Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) is financed solely by a 6.5% assessment imposed on employers/insurers on (a) awards for permanent disability or death and (b) amounts payable under approved settlement agreements (LE § 9-806).
- Two employers (the MTA — through IWIF — and Baltimore County) received Commission awards for permanent partial disability that, before statutory pension offsets, were larger than the amounts ultimately payable after offsets under LE §§ 9-610 and 9-503(e).
- The employers paid the SIF assessment based on the post-offset amounts (what they actually paid to claimants); the SIF contended the assessment must be based on the gross award amount set by the Commission before any pension/service-retirement offsets.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission held the assessment is calculated on the award amount prior to statutory offsets; both circuit courts affirmed on judicial review.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and consolidated the cases to decide whether LE § 9-806 requires calculating the 6.5% assessment on the pre-offset award amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SIF assessment under LE § 9-806 is calculated on the award amount before or after statutory pension/service-retirement offsets | (MTA/County) "Award" means the amount payable after offsets; assessment should be on what employer actually pays post-offset | (SIF) Assessment applies to the Commission's award for permanent disability as decreed, i.e., the pre-offset award amount | Court: Assessment is 6.5% of the award determined by the Commission for permanent disability/death — computed prior to statutory offsets under §§ 9-610 and 9-503(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 278 Md. 320, 363 A.2d 505 (Md. 1976) (purpose of SIF to encourage hiring of disabled workers by limiting employer liability)
- Subsequent Injury Fund v. Pack, 250 Md. 306, 242 A.2d 506 (Md. 1968) (origin and purpose of the Second/Subsequent Injury Fund)
- Injured Workers’ Ins. Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 222 Md. App. 347, 112 A.3d 1092 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (intermediate appellate decision affirming Commission’s pre-offset assessment interpretation)
- State Dep’t of Assessments & Taxation v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 348 Md. 2, 702 A.2d 690 (Md. 1997) (use ordinary meaning/dictionaries when appropriate in statutory interpretation)
- Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty. v. Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. 1, 50 A.3d 1137 (Md. 2012) (statutory language must be read in context and harmonized with scheme)
- W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d 956 (Md. 2010) (Worker’s Compensation Act to be construed liberally to effectuate remedial purpose)
- C. & P. Tel. Co. of Md. v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 297 Md. 339, 466 A.2d 39 (Md. 1983) (allocation of liability between employer and SIF when pre-existing impairment exists)
- Cooper v. Wicomico County, Dep’t of Pub. Works, 284 Md. 576, 398 A.2d 1237 (Md. 1979) (SIF assessment essential to Fund solvency)