Montgomery County v. Deibler
2011 Md. LEXIS 664
Md.2011Background
- Deibler, a Montgomery County firefighter, sustained work-related knee injuries in 2006 and 2008 requiring light-duty assignments.
- Pre-disability, Deibler worked 96 hours biweekly with 15–20 overtime hours weekly; after injury, overtime dramatically reduced while base pay was maintained.
- During light duty, Deibler worked 40 hours/week plus about one overtime hour weekly, leading to substantial income loss from overtime pay.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded temporary partial disability benefits for periods of light duty, including overtime loss, under LE 9-615(a).
- Montgomery County challenged the Commission’s interpretation, arguing wage earning capacity does not include overtime; circuit court denied summary judgment for the County but held overtime is part of wage earning capacity.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding that wage includes overtime compensation and that Deibler’s wage earning capacity was less during disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'wage earning capacity' include overtime compensation under LE 9-615(a)? | Deibler: yes, overtime is part of wage earning capacity. | County: no, overtime is not guaranteed compensation and should be excluded. | Yes; wage earning capacity includes overtime for LE 9-615(a). |
| Should the term 'wage' be read broadly to include overtime under the Act? | Deibler advocates a broad definition of wage. | County advocates a narrow definition excluding overtime. | Broad interpretation adopted; wage includes overtime under the Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346 (2010) (statutory interpretation and deference to agency when interpreting remedial statutes; prima facie correct but not for questions of law)
- Breitenbach v. N.B. Handy Co., 366 Md. 467 (2001) (remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act; liberal construction in favor of injured workers)
- Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1 (2011) (statutory interpretation to ascertain legislative intent; plain language rule and ambiguity analysis)
- Stachowski v. Sysco Food Serv. of Baltimore, Inc., 402 Md. 506 (2007) (approach to statutory interpretation when ordinary tools fail; look to surrounding circumstances and legislative history)
- Victor v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 318 Md. 624 (1990) (remedial purpose of the Act; protect workers and distribute burden fairly)
- Buckler v. Willett Constr. Co., 345 Md. 350 (1997) (disability meaning in temporary partial disability; distinction from total disability)