65 A.3d 692
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Swedo injured at work; initial commission award: $234/week for 200 weeks, total $46,800.
- Judicial review led to a jury finding higher disability; new award: $525/week for 333 weeks, total $174,825.
- Employer paid $34,632 under the original award during the interim period.
- Dispute: whether credits for prior payments should be dollars or weeks; plaintiff advocates dollar credit, employer advocates weeks credit.
- LE § 9-633 (2001) codified a credit rule upon modification on appeal; the dispute centers on interpretation of 'compensation' and credits.
- Court ultimately holds that a dollar credit is required and remands for summary judgment in favor of Swedo with dollars-based credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LE § 9-633 require dollar or weeks credit when an award is modified on appeal? | Swedo: dollar credit aligns with statutory definition of compensation. | Employer: weeks credit follows precedent from Philip Electronics and Ametek. | Dollar credit required. |
| How does LE § 9-633 interact with legislative history and pre-2001 case law (Philip Electronics, Ametek, Del Marr)? | Swedo: legislative history favors dollar credit; §9-633 codified uniform dollar approach. | Employer: prior case law should control; no explicit overrule of Philip Electronics. | Legislative history supports dollar credit; statute codifies uniform approach. |
| What is the proper remedy given a modified award on appeal under LE § 9-633? | Swedo should receive the higher award with a dollar credit for prior payments. | Employer seeks credit for amounts paid under original terms. | Remanded for summary judgment in favor of Swedo and to grant dollar-based credit; compute net payable as $140,193. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Philip Electronics North American Corporation, 112 Md.App. 642 (Md. App. 1997) (weeks-based credit favored by the court)
- Philip Electronics v. Wright, 348 Md. 209 (Md. 1997) (employer entitled to credit for weeks actually paid)
- Ametek v. O’Connor, 126 Md.App. 109 (Md. App. 1999) (credit based on total dollars actually paid when award increased)
- Ametek v. O’Connor, 364 Md. 143 (Md. 2001) (credit calculation aligned to weeks/consistent rule; later overruled by statute)
- Del Marr v. Montgomery County, 397 Md. 308 (Md. 2007) (discussed LE § 9-633; reaffirmed weekly framework but concluded statute not controlling reopening)
- Stachowski v. Sysco Food Services of Baltimore, Inc., 402 Md. 506 (Md. 2007) (defined 'last compensation payment' for reopening limitation)
- Vest v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 329 Md. 461 (Md. 1992) (definition and timing of compensation payments)