Zakwieia v. Baltimore County, Board of Education
153 A.3d 888
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant (Marcee Zakwieia), a Baltimore County public school employee, injured her back at work on December 13, 2007 and received workers’ compensation for back and shoulder injuries.
- Claimant applied for accidental disability retirement but was denied; she was awarded ordinary disability retirement benefits instead, partly based on a preexisting lumbar degenerative condition.
- The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission held that ordinary disability retirement benefits and the workers’ compensation award were “similar benefits” under LE § 9-610 and applied a statutory offset.
- Claimant sought rehearing, then appealed the Commission’s orders to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board, affirming the offset.
- On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals the central question was whether LE § 9-610 permits the Board (and the Subsequent Injury Fund) to offset ordinary disability retirement benefits against workers’ compensation benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPP § 29-118 (Teachers’ Pension statute) controls and precludes LE § 9-610 offset | SPP § 29-118 is the controlling statute for members of the Teachers’ Pension System and limits offsets to accidental/special disability, so no offset here (ordinary disability). | Case was litigated under LE § 9-610; SPP § 29-118 was not raised below and does not apply to ordinary disability. | Unpreserved; court declines to consider on appeal. Even on the merits, SPP § 29-118 does not apply to ordinary disability. |
| Whether LE § 9-610 offset applies only when both benefits arise from the same injury, or when benefits are similar in nature (wage-loss) | Reynolds requires a single medical condition/common injury basis for both awards, so offset should apply only when benefits stem from the same injury. | “Similar benefits” means similarity of the benefit (wage-loss/disability compensation), not identity of the underlying injury. | Affirmed: “similar benefits” refers to the nature of the benefit (wage-loss disability), so LE § 9-610 offset applies to ordinary disability retirement benefits that function like wage-loss compensation. |
| Whether both employer and Subsequent Injury Fund may claim the offset | Offset to employer only; SIF should not also receive the benefit of the same offset for the same claim. | Statute states employer payment satisfies liability of both employer and SIF to the extent of payment; SIF liability arose from the work-related exacerbation of preexisting condition. | Rejected claimant’s argument; both the Board and the SIF can have their liability satisfied to the extent of employer-paid similar benefits under LE § 9-610. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nooe v. City of Baltimore, 28 Md. App. 348 (discussing legislative response to prevent double recovery for government employees)
- Montgomery County v. Kaponin, 237 Md. 112 (construction of predecessor statute limiting offsets and prompting legislative change)
- Reynolds v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s County, 127 Md. App. 648 (ordinary disability retirement benefits held similar to workers’ compensation; offset applied)
- Frank v. Baltimore County, 284 Md. 655 (legislative intent to provide single recovery for government employees)
- Newman v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 311 Md. 721 (service retirement benefits not similar to accidental disability benefits)
- State Ret. & Pension Sys. v. Thompson, 368 Md. 53 (statutory construction relevant to pension-offset provisions)