W.R. Grace & Co. v. Swedo, 439 Md. 441

Background

Three consolidated appeals (Swedo; Florida Rock v. Owens; Coffee v. Rent‑A‑Center) address how employers/insurers are credited for prior workers’ compensation payments when a permanent partial disability award is modified on appeal.
In each case an initial award was paid (measured in weeks × weekly rate), then a court/jury increased the award on judicial review and the Commission entered an amended award.
Dispute: whether the employer/insurer receives credit for (a) the number of weeks previously paid, or (b) the total dollars previously paid.
Lower tribunals were split: some applied a weeks‑paid credit (consistent with earlier Maryland case law), others applied a dollars‑paid credit pursuant to LE § 9‑633.
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory language and legislative history and held that LE § 9‑633 requires credit measured by total dollars paid when an award is reversed or modified on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How to compute credit when an award is reversed/modified on appeal	Workers: LE § 9‑633 uses “compensation,” defined as money; credit must be total dollars paid	Employers: Act frames benefits in weekly durations; precedent (Philip, Ametek, Del Marr) supports credit by weeks paid	Held: Credit is for total dollars previously paid when award is reversed or modified on appeal (LE § 9‑633 governs)
Whether prior case law (weeks approach) controls after § 9‑633	Workers: statute’s definition of “compensation” supersedes prior common‑law/decisional rules	Employers: Philip/Ametek/Del Marr show a consistent weekly framework; statute should be read with Act’s weekly structure	Held: § 9‑633 (effective Oct. 1, 2001) abrogates Philip and Ametek for appeal‑modifications; Del Marr (a reopening case) is distinguishable
Whether Del Marr requires weeks credit for all modifications	Employers: Del Marr language endorses weekly credit for modifications generally	Workers: Del Marr dealt with reopenings (LE § 9‑736), not appellate modifications under § 9‑633; not controlling here	Held: Del Marr applies to reopenings (worsening condition); it does not control § 9‑633 situations governing appellate modification
Role of statutory definitions and legislative history in interpretation	Workers: statutory definition of “compensation” (LE § 9‑101) and legislative materials show intent to credit dollars	Employers: Act’s overall weekly structure argues against switching units to dollars	Held: The statutory definition is unambiguous—"compensation" means money—so courts apply the plain meaning; legislative history supports dollar crediting

Key Cases Cited

Philip Electronics North America v. Wright, 348 Md. 209 (decided rule favoring weeks‑paid credit under pre‑statute law)
Ametek, Inc. v. O’Connor, 364 Md. 143 (applied weeks‑paid rule to increases under pre‑§ 9‑633 law)
Del Marr v. Montgomery County, 397 Md. 308 (addressed crediting in reopening context; weekly credit affirmed for reopenings)
Stachowski v. Sysco Food Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 402 Md. 506 (discussed use of ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)
Board of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59 (explained appellate review/deference to administrative agency interpretation)