Justin Greer v. Montgomery County, Maryland.
No. 3381
In the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
May 28, 2020
Berger, J.
September Term, 2018
Justin Greer v. Montgomery County, Maryland., No. 3381, Sept. Term 2018. Opinion filed on May 28, 2020, by Berger, J.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — COMPENSABLE HERNIA — HERNIA AS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
The Workers Compensation Act specifically provides for compensation for hernias under specific circumstances in
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 443477-V
Pursuant to
Suzanne Johnson
2020-07-21 14:55-04:00
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk
REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 3381
September Term, 2018
JUSTIN GREER
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Berger,
Gould,
Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
Opinion by Berger, J.
Filed: May 28, 2020
This
Whether the Commission and the circuit court erred in determining that Mr. Greer‘s inguinal hernia was not compensable as an occupational disease under the Act.
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Greer filed a claim with the Commission on February 24, 2017 alleging that he had suffered an inguinal hernia caused by repetitive lifting during his ten years of employment as a Montgomery County firefighter. “A hernia occurs when there is a protrusion of tissue through an abnormal opening of the body. Although they most commonly occur in the groin, they may occur in other areas of the body as well.” Clifford B. Sobin, 1 Maryland Workers’ Compensation § 5.3, at 141 (2018) (footnote omitted).1
Mr. Greer had been diagnosed
The Commission held a hearing on Mr. Greer‘s claim on January 29, 2018. Mr. Greer argued, through counsel, that his inguinal hernia was a compensable occupational disease. Montgomery County, Mr. Greer‘s employer, asserted that hernias are not compensable as occupational diseases, and instead, are compensable only pursuant to the portion of the Act specifically addressing hernias set forth in
The Commission agreed with Montgomery County and disallowed Mr. Greer‘s workers’ compensation claim. The Commission explained:
Hearing was held in the above claim at Beltsville, Maryland on January 29, 2018 on the following issue:
Did the employee sustain an occupational disease (hernia) arising out of and in the course of employment?
The Commission finds on the issue presented that the claimant did not sustain an occupational disease (her[ni]a) arising out and in the course of employment as alleged to have occurred on December 19, 2016; pursuant to Maryland Law, a hernia can only be compensable as an accidental injury or strain pursuant to 9-504. Hernia as an occupational disease is not recognized under the current statute and the Commission will disallow the claim filed herein.
Mr. Greer sought judicial review de novo of the Commission‘s determination in the circuit court. After a bench trial on December 12, 2018, the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Mr. Greer subsequently noted a timely appeal to this Court.
DISCUSSION
The narrow issue before us on appeal is whether a hernia is compensable as an occupational disease under the Act. Although this case was before the circuit court on a petition for judicial review de novo, the parties agreed before the circuit court that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that the case hinges upon a single legal issue. The parties further agree in this appeal that the issue before us is a purely legal one.
The following standard of review applies to our determination in this case:
Generally, in an appeal from judicial review of an agency action, we review the agency‘s decision directly, not the decision of the circuit court . . . . We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers; however, we may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law. The Commission‘s decision “is presumed to be prima facie correct[.]”
LE § 9-745(b)(1) . That presumption, however, does not extend to questions of law, which we review independently. We do, though, afford the Commission a degree of deference, as appropriate, in its formal interpretations of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Long v. Injured Workers’ Ins. Fund, 448 Md. 253, 264 (2016).
“The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and, as a result, is generally interpreted liberally in favor
common sense meaning.” 1081 Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 383 Md. 489, 502 (2004). We have explained:
Where the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a definite and simple meaning, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent. If the words of the statute are susceptible to more than one meaning, it is necessary to consider their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives and [the] purpose of the enactment. Therefore, we construe the statute as a whole and interpret each of its provisions in the context of the entire statutory scheme. Where the statute in question contains no ambiguity, the intent of the legislature is clear and the doctrine of liberal construction does not apply.
McLaughlin, supra, 206 Md. App. at 252-53 (quotation and citations omitted).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the legal issue at the center of this appeal. We must determine whether Mr. Greer sustained an occupational disease that is compensable under the Act. Section 9-504 of the Labor and Employment Article specifically addresses compensable hernias as follows:
Except as otherwise provided, an employer shall provide compensation in accordance with this title to a covered employee for a hernia caused by an accidental personal injury or by a strain arising out of and in the course of employment if:
- the covered employee provides definite proof that satisfies the Commission that:
- the hernia did not exist before the accidental personal injury or strain occurred; or
- as a result of the accidental personal injury or strain, a preexisting hernia has become so aggravated, incarcerated, or strangulated that an immediate operation is needed; and
- notwithstanding any other provision of this title about notice, the accidental personal injury or strain was reported to the employer within 30 days after its occurrence.
Mr. Greer does not assert in this appeal that his hernia is compensable under
As Clifford Sobin observes in his treatise on Maryland Workers’ Compensation law, “[h]ernia injuries are a subset of workers’ compensation claims that are subjected to different treatment under the law.” Maryland Workers’ Compensation, § 5.3, at 141. Sobin explains:
The statute, at one time, expanded the universe of potential compensable claims
by stating that an employee shall receive compensation, “. . . for a hernia caused by an accidental personal injury or by a strain arising out of and in the course of employment if . . .” [ LE § 9-504 .] As a result, an employee could claim benefits for a hernia even if the incident did not meet the definition of an accidental injury. However, since an accidental injury is now defined as an incident that results in an unexpected, unintended, or unusual injury, almost all strain injuries will most likely be considered accidental injuries.
Id. (footnotes omitted). Prior to the issuance of the Court of Appeals‘s decision in Harris v. Bd. Of Educ., 375 Md. 21 (2003), claimants were required to prove that the activity
causing an accidental injury was unusual. In Harris, the Court of Appeals held that “what must be unexpected, unintended, or unusual is the resulting injury and not the activity out of which the injury arises.” Id. at 36.
The Act provides for compensation for five categories of injuries and diseases. Section 9-501 of the Labor and Employment Article addresses accidental injuries. Section 9-502 addresses occupational diseases. Section 9-503 addresses presumptions for heart disease, hypertension, lung disease, certain cancers, and Lyme disease for certain public safety employees. Section 9-504, as we discussed supra, addresses compensable hernias, and § 9-505 addresses occupational deafness. Hernias are addressed only in
The Commission concluded that only hernias that specifically met the requirements of
course of employment; and (2) that causes the covered employee to become temporarily or permanently, partially or totally incapacitated.”
Section 9-745 of the Labor and Employment Article, governing the conduct for appeal proceedings in workers’ compensation cases, provides further support for our conclusion that hernias are compensable only pursuant to
Mr. Greer further argued before the Commission and the circuit court that the reference to “a strain” in
could include an occupational disease.3 In our view, if the legislature intended to cover a hernia as an occupational disease under the Act, there would have been no reason to create a specific separate section detailing when a hernia is compensable pursuant to
Although “[t]he Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and, as a result, is generally interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant,” McLaughlin, supra, 206 Md. App. at 253-54, the Commission only has those powers conferred upon it by statute. R.K. Grounds Care v. Wilson, 235 Md. App. 20, 32 (2017). Moreover, Sobin explains that
The clear intent of the hernia provisions of the Act is to provide additional protections to employers from employees who claim their hernias were as a result of a job-related activity. Such concerns are probably grounded on the following three factors that perhaps in combination apply to hernias to a far greater degree than other injuries:
- it is often difficult to pick a particular event that caused the hernia since the pain or symptoms may not be experienced immediately;
- hernias can easily be caused by non-job-related functions; and
- hernias usually are relatively easily repairable by surgery which has less risk than other procedures.
[footnote omitted]
Therefore, rather stringent requirements have been placed on a claimant by the Act. These requirements provide employers an opportunity to properly investigate claims expeditiously and provide incentives to employees to act quickly to mitigate the effect of the injury.
Maryland Workers’ Compensation, § 5.3, at 142-43.
The Commission correctly recognized that it only had the authority to award benefits for hernias that satisfied the requirements of
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
Opinion by Berger, J.
The correction notice(s) for this opinion(s) can be found here: https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/appellate/correctionnotices/cosa/3381s18cn.pdf