*1
v. COUNTY, Mаryland. MONTGOMERY Term, 138, Sept. 2009. No. Maryland. Appeals of
Court of Aug. *4 Conrad, (Chirumbole, P.C. of Gross Gross &
Douglas M. MD), brief, Petitioner. Gaithersburg, on *5 (Marc Wendy Karpel, Hansen, B. Associate Co. Atty. P. Acting Atty., Chief, Co. and Karen L. Henry, Federman Div. Rockville, MD), brief, on for Respondent. BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA,
Argued before GREENE, MURPHY, BARBERA, ADKINS and JJ.
HARRELL, J. This case evolves from J. Valerie Willis’s claim for workers’ benefits, compensation Act, under Compensation the Workers’ §§ Article, 9-101—9-1201 of the Labor and Employment Ma (1999, ryland Vol.),1 Code Repl. injuries for ostensibly sustained on 20 July 2001 the course of her employment as police officer Montgomery County with the Depart Police (the ment “County”). The paid some of her treatment, medical but learned later of a non-work-related event, disclosed, previously not may have contributed to her need for treatment. The County filed with the Workers’ (the “Commission”) Compensation Commission a request for a hearing and to refer Maryland Willis’s case to the Insurance (the “Division”). Fraud Division determined, The Commission after a hearing, that nо fraud occurred and denied the Coun ty’s request. County sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of the Commission’s refusal to refer the matter to the Division. The court held that Commission’s order was not an appealable decision. We are tasked with deciding whether the Commission’s refusal refer person to the Division under the Compensa Workers’ tion Act is a final administrative subject decision to a petition review.
I. FACTS July On 20 injured Willis claimed to have her left knee while participating departmental training exercise de- signed to simulate a High Columbine School terrorist situa- statutory 1. All Employment references herein are to the Labor and Article, unless otherwise indicated. from work because days actual any not miss did tion. She *6 days previously-scheduled three she used injury because She did returning duty. before recuperate off from work She did injury. for this treatment immediate medical not seek departmental formal in accordance with injury report not Lieu- orally supervisor, her advised although she procedures, to her that Hill, suggested He episode. Rodney of tenant did not act on claim. Willis compensation a workers’ she file 2001, assertedly August Willis immediately. advice this participating knee while to her left injury a second sustained did She Department. the Police exercise with shooting in a work, or treatment, from any time miss medical not seek either. her employer event to immediately this report left injury to her 2001, an sustained 31 December Willis On of a from the back jumped she knee, off-duty, when while attention. She medical immediate sought truck. She pick-up of the December only that she saw doctors told the first two thereafter consulted injury. her She as the cause of incident injuring she described Higgins, to whom Dr. David L. with December, August episode. not the but July of events that his indiсates of his visit with Willis record Higgins’s Dr. anterior cruciate from a torn that she suffered was impression in meniscus, lateral meniscus and torn medial ligament, torn January on 30 surgery Higgins performed knee. Dr. her left injuries. these repair 2002 to 2002, attorney prepared then and her 4 March Willis
On Commission, to be filed with for a claim paperwork left knee as result injury to her asserting that she sustained 2002, 14On March July on 20 training exercise his attorney, expressing letter to Willis’s Dr. sent a Higgins certainty that degree of medical a reasonable with “opinion ligament cruciate her left knee anterior tore Ms. Valerie Willis injury in twisting with a officer duty police while on as 7/01. injury.” that initial With since symptoms had continued She the claim to the hand, submitted attorney letter in her this April claim was filed on A corrected Commission. back, in to her her addition injured also stating that Willis In neither itera- exercise. knee, July training the 20 during tion of her claim did mention August Willis or December injuries. incidents or On 4 July the Commission deter mined that injury Willis sustained accidental or occupation disease/illness, 9-101,2 al as defined in arising out of and in employment July course her on 20 2001. The Commis sion determined that her weekly wage was $557.
She underwent a second surgery September which the County, through Montgomery County Self- Fund, paid. Insured In April Willis claimed temporary disability total benefits dating back to 2002. The County filed Commission, issues with the requesting a hearing referral (the Maryland Willis’s case to the Insurance Fraud Division “Division”). filed this request provided on a form by the states, Commission on its website. The part, form *7 undersigned that that alleges person “[t]he named below 9-310.2(a) violated section of the Employment Labor & Article and requests hearing a before the Commission.”3 isWillis listed as the “Person to be Referred” and the “Montgomery personal Act injury” The refers to an "accidental and defines it as 2. (1) injury an accidental that arises out of and in the course of employment; (2) injury by negligent an caused a persoir willful or act of a third against employee directed a employment covered in the course employee; of the covered or (3) naturally a disease or infection that results from an accidental injury employment, including: that arises out of and in the course of (i) disease; occupational and (ii) by frostbite or sunstroke caused a weather condition. 9—101(b). § "occupational The Act defines an disease” to mean a by employee: disease contracted a covered (1) employment; as the result of and in the course of (2) employee that causes the temporarily covered to become or permanently, partially totally incapacitated. 9—101(g). provides, part: Section 9-310.2 in relevant 3. (a) Referral of certain fraud cases to Insurance Fraud Division.—In Commission, any administrative action before the it if is established
by preponderance person knowingly a of the evidence that a affected fees, knowingly attempted payment compensation, to affect the expenses representation, under this title means of fraudulent person the Commission shall refer the case on the to the Insurance Maryland Fraud Division in the Insurance Administration. Fund,” “Party Requesting is listed as the County Self-Insured Fitzwater, the senior ad- that Joan Hearing.” appears It (the appar- Companies company for the juster Schaffer County’s ently and administered self-insured managed time), County signed Specifically, fund at the the form. that, that she County informed the alleged May Willis to her left injury July on 20 sustained a work-related compensation her workers’ County paid knee and that made a claim in 2006 for injury. for that When she benefits Cоunty temporary disability dating total back discovered, time, injurious first the non-work-related for the attor- that occurred on 31 December 2001. Claimant’s event fees, attorney costs and riposte, requesting filed issues ney, raised frivolous is- Employer/Insurer because the penalties, sues. hearing April held a on 17
The Commission her counsel prior found that neither claimant nor Commission fraud, and declined to refer the case to accordingly, committed decision, County sought the Division. From that Montgomery County. in the Court for Willis review Circuit Dismiss, arguing or to Summary Judgment filed Motion refer the to the Fraud the Commission’s refusal case final appealable Division was not because it was not a adminis motion, trative decision. The the Claimant’s opposed arguing that the order was final because it denied the right to reimbursement under 9-310.1.4 The Circuit *8 granted Court concluded that the Commission’s order neither Compensation nor denied a benefit under the Act Workers’ and, thus, Therefore, was not a final order or decision. the provides, part: 4. Section 9-310.1 in relevant (a) any Reimbursement.—In administrative action before the Com- mission, by preponderance if it is established a of the evidence that a person knowingly has obtained benefits under this to which the title entitled, person person is not the Commission shall order the to insurer, employer, Injured reimburse the self-insured the Workers' Fund, Fund, Employers’ Subsequent Insurance the Uninsured or the Injury person knowingly amount of the Fund for the all benefits that person obtained and to which the is not entitled.
532 judgment and summary motion for granted
court Willis’s judicial review. County’s petition for dismissed the to the Court of timely appeal filed a notice judgment reversed the of the Circuit Appeals, which Special Willis, Montgomery County v. reported opinion. Court (2009). 514, The intermediate A.2d 209 Md.App. 979 the that the Commission’s agreed court -with appellate final, order, the County from which appealable decision was a 538, 979 A.2d at review. Id. at judicial to right had the seek so, rejected intermediate court appellate the doing justifying appealability County’s argument § for request under L.E. 9-310.2 order on the basis “[a] for clearly request not the same as a referral to the Division is employ- obtained wrongfully of benefits reimbursement 9-310.1.” Id. at A.2d at 224. ee, § in L.E. as set forth Rather, County, aggrieved party, an the court held that review of the refusal to right petition had the to “would come the Division because the denial person refer a to in the Commission with vesting power close to unchecked Id. to matters under L.E. 9-310.2....” respect furthered holding The Court conceived its A.2d at 229. 9-310.2, §§ 9-310.1 and Legislature’s passing intent fraud, employees and to deter from discourage was “to which Compen- afforded under the abusing privileges Workers’ certiorari, 411 Act.” Id. Wе issued a writ of Md. sation (2009), to consider the upon petition, A.2d 244 Willis’s following question: raises an issue before Workers’ employer
When an seeking request for referral Compensation Commission Md. pursuant Fraud Division Maryland Insurance Ann. 9-310.2 and that Employ. Lab. & Code denied, the denial an appealable issue[?][5] the referral is is question question present- her from the she 5. Petitioner has re-worded originally petition for certiorari which read: ed in her compensation appealable What issue in workers’ constitutes compensation com- must the decision of the workers claim in that: deny appealable? grant a benefit to be mission *9 explain, judg- For the reasons that we shall we reverse the Special Appeals ment of the Court of and hold that grant County’s request Commission’s failure to to refer to the Division not an final administra- appealable Willis was tive action.
II. ANALYSIS that, in fоr premise We start with the “basic order agency’s properly an administrative action to be before this court) (or review, any judicial generally Court for there must legislative grant right judicial be a to seek review.” Marshall, 243, 273, Harvey v. 389 Md. 884 A.2d (2005). right right “The to an not a due appeal required by is law, nor is inherent An process right. it an or inalienable is appellate right entirely statutory origin person and no may prosecute agency appeal right such an unless the is conferred Injuries Compensation statute.” Criminal Bd. Gould, (1975) (citations 486, 500, v. 273 Md. 331 A.2d omitted).6
In the context of from an appeals administrative decision of Commission, § right 9-737 confers the appeal upon party any person” other “interested “aggrieved by is case, decision of the Commission....”7 present brief, Although change re-worded in her no substantive is worked in the original question presented question focus of the for review. presented merely narrowing in her brief is refinement of broader question petition framed in her for a writ of certiorari. legal changed properly Before the nomenclature to reflect more formerly ''appeal” what was known as an from an action of a State or action, body “petition local administrative was a review” uniformly "appeal.” the older cases almost referred to the action as an effectively synonymous present analytical purposes. The terms are provides: 7. Section 9-737 employer, employee, dependent
An
employee,
covered
of a covered
any
person aggrieved by
other interested
a decision of the Commis-
sion,
including
Subsequent
Injury
Fund and the Uninsured Em-
Fund,
ployers’
may appeal
from the decision of the Commission
provided
appeal
days
is filed within 30
after
the date of the
mailing
by:
of the Commissiоn’s order
*10
in the Circuit Court of
judicial review
County sought
§
to refer the case under
9-310.2.
Commission’s refusal
to
refusal to refer her
that the Commission’s
argues
Willis
it
not
decision because
did
appealable
Division was not an
is
County,
County
and thus the
deny
a benefit to the
grant
response,
§of 9-737.
purposes
for the
“aggrieved”
not
it
decision denied
contends that
the Commission’s
County
because,
to refer
by
the Commission
Willis
requesting
benefits
Division,
requested implicitly
it also
reimbursement
to the
her in the
to
County paid
past, pursuant
that the
benefits
found,
to state
9-310.1,
although
if
it failed
§
fraud were
in its
filed with the Commission.
request
papers
this
expressly
explicitly this
request
that it did not
concedes
because, by request
relief,
that it did not have to
rejoins
but
§to
9-
pursuant
a
to the Division
hearing
a
for
referral
ing
successful,
if
also to
310.2,
necessarily,
it should be understood
by
wrongfully
obtained
Will
seek reimbursement for benefits
words,
it
request
asserts that when
is.8 In оther
9-310.1,
it
claim under
to refer the fraud
ed the Commission
sought
that it
inform the Commission also
did not need to
to the
Rather,
only
it need
referral
reimbursement.
Division,
provide
does not itself
the fact that
9-310.2
despite
remedy.
of back benefits as a
for reimbursement
rule,
judicial
review of
an action
general
“As
is
if the administrative order
only
order will lie
administrative
County Human Rela
Spas Montgomery
v.
Holiday
final.”
(1989).
Comm’n,
390, 395,
1197,
554 A.2d
1199
tions
315 Md.
(1)
7
with Title
filing petition
review in accordance
Rules;
Maryland
(2)
including
petition a certificate of service
attaching
in the
filing
copy
petition has
verifying
of the
of the
that on the date
and to each other
by
mail to the Commission
been sent
first-class
record;
party of
and
(3)
by
filing, serving copies
petition
first-
of the
on the date
party
and each other
of record.
class mail on the Commission
with
reach
conclusion in this case
8. We offer no comment and
no
wrong-
County’s
Willis оbtained benefits
regard to the
contention that
fully.
535
“final,” the order
decision must
of the case
dispose
To be
nothing
all
and fact
leave
further
deciding
question of law
See,
e.g., Montgomery
body
for the administrative
to decide.
Ward,
619,
County v.
521, 528-29,
A.2d
331 Md.
629
623
Graham,,
Murray
Freight Corp.
Int’l
v.
(1993);
543,
315 Md.
553,
502,
(1989);
396,
Holiday Spas,
555 A.2d
The County requested expressly the “issue” that it filed Commission, with the on the form by made available the Commission, that the Commission refer Willis to the Division §to pursuant 9-310.2 of the Labor Employment Article. 9-310.2, Sectiоn entitled “Referral of certain fraud cases to Division; Insurance Fraud reports,” provides, relevant part:
(a) Referral of certain fraud cases to Insurance Fraud any Division.—In administrative action before the Commis- sion, if it is by preponderance established a of the evidence person that a knowingly affected or knowingly attempted to payment fees, affect the compensation, of or expenses under by this title of a means fraudulent representation, the Commission shall refer the case on the person Insurance Ad- Maryland in the Fraud Division
Insurance ministration. hand, wrongfully “Benefits § 9-810.1 entitled the other
On interest,” in relevant reimbursement; provides, obtained; part: action before
(a)
administrative
any
Reimbursement.—In
Commission,
by
preponderance
a
if it is established
benefits
knowingly
has
obtained
person
that a
the evidence
entitled,
is not
person
this titlе to which
under
insurer,
to reimburse the
person
order the
shall
Commission
Insurance
Injured Workers’
employer,
self-insured
Fund,
Subsequent
or the
Fund,
Employers’
the Uninsured
that the person
of all benefits
for the amount
Injury Fund
not entitled.
person
is
and to which
knowingly obtained
a
decision denied
that the Commission’s
argues
reim-
effectively it denied
it
benefit to
because
for)
(or
to seek reimbursement
opportunity
bursement for
For the
purposes
wrongfully obtained Willis.
benefits
order, a benefit means
administrative
Compensation
Workers’
Act],
Compensation
under [the
of an award
Workers’
grant
“a
thereto;
is, something awarded
something equivalent
6,n.
555 A.2d
Whether
*12
under the
reimbursement
request for
implicit
also an
braces
inter
statutory
of
question
Act is a
Compensation
Workers’
389
and,
such,
legal
Harvey,
one. See
purely
is
as
pretation,
is non-
257,
Accordingly, our review
A.2d at 1179.
Md. at
884
Lock
reviewing courts.
judgment
the
of earlier
deferential to
(2010).
18,
257, 273,
27
Semsker,
987 A.2d
412 Md.
v.
shin
ascertain and
construction “is to
statutory
rule of
The cardinal
Id.
Legislature.”
intent of the
the real and actual
effectuate
of the
274,
language
turn first to the
A.2d at 28. We
987
the
meaning of
statute,
ordinary, plain
the
to which we ascribe
If
275,
meaning
A.2d at 28.
the
987
words.
Id. at
the
presume
Legisla
we
unambiguous,
and
is clear
language
as to
inquiry
That
ends our
typically
it said.
ture meant what
legislative
apply
written,
intent “and we
the statute as
without
275,
resort to other rules of construction.” Id. at
“We
delete
so as to
reflect an intent not
in
plain
evidenced
the
and unambiguous
statute,
of
language
the
and we do not construe a statute with
‘forced or
interpretations’
subtle
that limit or
appli
extend its
275,
cation.” Id. at
987 A.2d at
(quoting
Lonaconing Trap
Club,
Env’t,
326, 339,
Inc. v. Dep’t
702,
the
410 Md.
978 A.2d
of
(2009)).
Nor do we construe the language of the statute
vacuum; rather,
in a
we
languagе
examine the
“within the
context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, consider
aim,
ing
purpose,
the
or policy of the
Legislature
enacting
“
276,
the statute.” Id. at
Furthermore,
We conclude that 9-310.1 and 9-310.2 are unambiguous and that we need look no further than the plain meaning of the statutory language to discern the A Legislature’s intent. reading plain language indicates that a request for a referral to the Division does not encompass necessarily or implicitly a request by entity seeking referral for reim- bursement. Although two relevant appear sections con- Code, secutively we note thеy are separate and distinct, without internal cross-references. The County ar- gues nonetheless that it was not to file required an issue with asking Commission specifically for relief under 9-310.1 for several reasons.
First, argues that there is no regula- statute or tion that requires party to file separate issues with true, Commission. that may While be it imperative seems intuitive party that a appearing before the Commission needs *13 it is the to asking what Commission
to inform the Commission County if the wanted reimburse- Simply put, decide or do. ment, needed to ask the Commission to consider it. it §
Second, that is not County points the out 9-310.1 Commission, nor the form that it filed with the mentioned on on the website is there a form available Commission’s for bene employer may which an ask reimbursement back to, Therefore, it did County the concludes that not need fits. to file a issue ability, separate requesting not have did to Section 9-314 directs the Commission reimbursemеnt. ready for distribution and “adopt regulations provide that Com required of the forms under this section.”9 availability “[fjorms provide prepared by regulations mission 9-314, Article, § under and Employment Commission Labor mandatory are and shall be Maryland, Annotated Code claims, notices, re requests, or other filing papers used for Article, Title these Employment the Labor and quired by (2010). A party requesting COMAR 14.09.01.02 regulations.” “shall request before the Commission shall file a and hearing matters of to be clarity state and in detail facts or law with determined____” A(l). The of a 14.09.01.14 absence COMAR reimbursement, however, form does not excuse requesting for with and detail on the County’s clarity failure to state matters More form it used the facts and to be determined. over, did not County specifi mention 9-310.1 counsel cally April hearing the 17 generally or reimbursement If the to before the Commission. wanted ensure its request the Commission would consider reimbursement form, ultimately, then but was concerned that there was no it that concern to the Commission. could have mentioned regu- continues that because the Commission’s file a party not that a must provide specifically lations do 9-310.1, not here. for a under it need do so hearing earlier, party its regulations require As to state noted 9-701(1) "adopt reasonable 9. Section authorizes Commission Commission, procedures regulations govern the proper simple reasonably possible....” as and brief as which shall be *14 and with and in detail. COMAR clarity claims issues The that the know only way 14.09.01.14. Commission would hearing to hold a and County that the wanted the Commission § under 9-310.1 is to consider reimbursement of back benefits and in detail the clarity inform the Commission state with Commission, to be The we facts or matters of law considered. assume, clairvoyance not the of to know possess faculty does (or wants, notice; the nor County any party) what without hold necessarily hearing that when it is asked to appreciate Division, § for in provided to consider referral to the as 9- 310.2, being it also is asked sub silentio to consider reimburse- §in provided ment as 9-310.1. County
The
relies on Dove v.
Board
County
Montgomery
of
Education,
(2008),
dard of proof, namely, preponderance appears sections, in each of the relevant statutory the same evidence and testimony could lead the Commission to find fraud or to determine that the benefits were obtained wrongfully by of causa- finding evidence that affected omitting
virtue of that, It true for several reasons. tion. This tack fails is 9-310.2, § standard applicable § under 9-310.1 and That, however, does of the evidence. proof preponderance is two are leap logic sections justify County’s not does not refer to Significantly, 9-310.2 one and same. wrong- provide nor does it for remuneration reimbursement other than referral any penalty, funds or other fully obtained does not Action the Division on referral to the Division. a claim to consideration of precedent to be a condition appear under 9-310.1. reimbursement *15 9-310.1, a may § order the Commission Under “if aby prepon reimbursement it is established person pay to knowingly a has obtained person derance of the evidence that the is not enti person under this title to which benefits ” Thus, only need party seeking tled .... the reimbursement to which knowingly that the obtained benefits person show 9-310.2, § “if it is established not entitled. Under they were knowingly that a person a of the evidence by preponderance affect the of attemptеd payment or knowingly affected fees, by under title means of a expenses or this compensation, shall refer representation, fraudulent the Commission of requires proof 9-310.2 case” to the Division. Section 9-310.1, in representation. and a Section scienter fraudulent contrast, person knowingly that obtained requires only a they Although party which were not entitled. benefits to prove required section must seeking relief under each evidence, of the the two sections by preponderance elements with the Court agree of different elements. We require proof in the opinion present when it stated its Special Appeals of correct, would County’s position that were there case “[i]f for the to enact the two distinct Legislature be no reason provisions necessarily one of the would statutory provisions; principles which is at odds with the supеrfluous, be rendered at 979 A.2d at statutory Md.App. of construction.” 187 reasons, hold that a foregoing for the we Accordingly, under 9- for a for a referral to the Division request hearing automatically, necessarily, implic- encompass 310.2 does not paid wrongfully for reimbursement for benefits itly under 9-310.1. on, alternative, if in the County presses benefit, deny did not it a it is not
Commission’s decision review, that, authorizing judicial of necessary purposes grant deny Compensa order a benefit under the Workers’ contention, of this launches support tion Act. of arguments.10 another MIRV present of in its in the Special Appeals, opinion
The Court
case,
Paolino,
and Havenner “do not
Murray,
held that
under the circumstances at-
necessarily
appeal
foreclose an
here,
after the
concerning
long
tendant
a statute enacted
”
979 A.2d at
Md.App.
decisions were rendered....
the Commission’s decision not to refer Willis to
228. Because
whether
“fully
finally
question
the Division
resolved the
showed,
evidence,
employer
by
preponderance
‘knowingly
knowingly attempted
affected or
Willis
fees,
compensation,
...
payment
expenses
affect
representation!;,]....’”
means of a fraudulent
the Commis-
Id.
aggrieved.
sion’s decision was final and the
was
(alterations in original).
appellate
The intermediate
court
it
that “when the
enacted L.E.
Legislature
deemed
relevant
*16
9-310.2,
§
§
signal
9-310.1 and L.E.
it did not
an intent to
preclude judicial
by
review of decisions rendered
the Commis-
provisions.”
sion under those
Id. The absence of such an
§ 9-
Legislature
intent and the fact that “the
enacted L.E.
fraud,
§
9-310.2 to
and to deter
discourage
310.1
L.E.
from
under the
employees
abusing
privileges afforded
...
Compensation
employer/in-
Act
and to protect
Workers’
public by helping
integrity
surers and the
to assure the
of the
colleagues
led
compensation system,”
appellate
workers’
our
to
of the Commis-
preclude
conclude that
review
War,
through
10. For readers who did not live
the Cold
“MIRV” is the
"multiple
acronym
independently targetable re-entry
A
vehicle.”
MIRV, thus,
warheads,
single
carrying multiple
usually
was a
missile
variety.
the nuclear
a referral
grant
deny
whether to
sion’s decision
548-49,
A.2d at 229.
Id. at
purposes.
would thwart those
appellate
naturally
echoes
the intermediate
County
The
course, it is true that
the General
Of
reasoning.
court’s
it enacted the Labor and
§
enacted
9-737 when
Assembly
1991,
the aforementioned court
Article in
after
Employment
9-737, however, was not
rendered. Section
decisions were
stated,
after,”
Appeals
of Special
enacted
as the Court
“long
Willis,
Md.App.
all of the decisions were rendered. See
in
547,
example,
For
we decided Paolino
The overlooks Sautter, grant/deni- in reiterated the Special Appeals, Court of deci- requirement of Commission appealability al of benefits 9-737, § the codification of the sions since the enactment of Employment Act in the Labor and Compensation Workers’ statutory incarnation of Workers’ Article is not the first Maryland. Assembly in first Compensation law General compensation law 1914. See Md. enacted workers’ Cornblatt, 800; Maryland Theodore B. Workers’ Laws Ch. (2009). present § 1-1 Pertinent to the Compensation Manual case, § 9-737. The predecessor law contained from a decision of what was then appeals 1914 Act authorized 1914 Md. Compensation called the Workmen’s Commission. provided: § 55. That Laws Ch. section feeling ag- Any employer, employee, benefiсiary, person affecting the Commission his any decision of grieved by Act, have the reviewed may interests under this same of an and initiated in the appeal in the nature proceeding in the Law Circuit Common Courts Court City.... of Baltimore and Em- Assembly enacted the Labor
Id. When General included a Revisor’s Legislature Article ployment 9-737, 9-737 is derived from Note to which indicated *17 judicial of Commission authorizing the former statute review language It section is new de- “[t]his decisions. states and, sentence as it clause of the second rived from the first of the first appeal, the first clause authorizing related to 56(a), and, as it related to of former Art. sentence Ch. 8. sentence of 95.” 1991 Md. Laws appeals, the first judicial right to seek authorizing the statute Although Employment in the “new” Labor and review was re-codified why we see no reason slightly language, Article "with different of the Labor and cases decided before the enactment good present do not remain law for Employment Article purposes. Co., whether a
In Paolino v. McCormick &
we considered
appeal
could
from a
compensation
to a workers’
case
party
sought compensation
in
wholly
its favor. Paolino
judgment
that the
disability.
employer argued
total
temporary
her claim. The Commission
statute of limitations barred
claim,
her
of limitations did not bar
but
found that
statute
her claim for other reasons. Paolino
rejected
nevertheless
Court and McCor-
review the Circuit
petitioned
ruling
cross-appeal
mick
from the Commission’s
purported
granted partial summary
on
The Circuit Court
limitations.
issue,
of Paolino on the limitations
but
judgment
favor
entered
in favor of McCormick. McCor-
ultimately
judgment
raising the
Special Appeals
mick
to the Court of
appealed
The intermediate
court held that
appellate
limitations issue.
Court
the statute of limitations barred Paolino’s claim. This
ability
McCormick lacked the
to the Circuit
appeal
held that
wholly
favorable to
Court because
Commission’s order was
579, 582,
made the Commission necessary of law and of fact for a determining the issues presented particular pro- in that problem resolution of and grants or denies some benefit under the ceeding which Act.” (alterations
Id. at
583,
in
emphasis
This Court held that the determination of whether Graham
was not essential to the resolution of
employee
was
Gra-
and,
ham’s claim
more
compensation
importantly
pres-
purposes, “Murray
appealed
ent
International could not have
”
550,
‘judgment.’
from that
More 564, 402, (2006), the Court of 905 A.2d Md.App. ap- that a final requirement considered the Special Appeals grant deny of the must pealable order Commission compensation his claim Griggs, benefit. the claimant filed supra 12. See note and, years injury,
over two
after he sustained an
thus fell
of limitations. The
employer
outside
stаtute
raised
in
argument
hearing
timely
limitations
before the
and after
for a
but the
not
request
rehearing,
Commission did
address
employer petitioned
limitations. The
review the
Court,
only
Circuit
about the
complaining
denying
order
rehearing.
judgment
The Circuit Court entered
in favor of
the employer. Griggs appealed
appellate
to the intermediate
alia,
arguing,
denying
court
inter
that the order
rehearing
appealable
for a
was not an
order “because it does
deny
not
some
grant
compensa-
benefit under the workers’
rejected
tion laws----” Id. at
sion’s decision did not the a that is irrelevant because when “the appellate courts have referred to the need for a final order to address benefits was meant [it merely] as a means of a final distinguishing decision for purposes appeal of from an interim or finding conclusion. standard, Rather than create a new the courts have reiterated the final judgment interlocutory basic rule and disfavor of appeals.” agree that courts the need a employ We final order to or grant deny distinguishing benefits as a means of a final decision for of from an purposes appeal interlocutory acceptance interim decision. We fail to see how our of this A of the here. decision County’s cause helps principle necessarily deny a benefit grant not does that Commission immediate subject not to order or interim interlocutory an is review. judicial County did not that the determined
Because we have in its to paid benefits Willis for back reimbursement request appealable and that to the Division for referral request benefit, a deny grant order must administrative final referral to the for a is whether remaining question judicial itself, subject to a final order is, in and of Division (1) the Commis- whether Thus, must determine we review.13 Mary- present to compared the case Appeals Special The Court of Anderson, 395 Md. Planning v. Comm’n Capital Park and land-National Anderson, (2006). whether the 172, we considered 909 A.2d “MNCPPC”) (the had Planning Commission Capital Park and Md.-Nat’l hearing board judicial after an administrative right review to seek charges guilty” in an administrative finding as to of “not issued a employ- Police against one of its Park filed complaint that the MNCPPC judicial right to seek not have a MNCPPC did We held that the ees. (“LEBOR”), Rights Officer’s Bill of Enforcement under the Law review 3-101—3-113, Article, (2003), §§ which stated Safety Public Md.Code ” “ Anderson, 395 action.’ finding guilty terminates the of not '[a] (alteration original). Section 3-109 A.2d at 699 Md. at disciplin- may judicial review of a aggrieved party seek provides that an ary LEBOR. decision under review it was entitled MNCPPC contended that preclude expressly Legislature did not because the board's decision argument rejected guilty We MNCPPC’s decision. review of not findings guilty’ to be Legislature for 'not intended "[i]f held that reviewable, intention, express language to it could have included Id. at 909 A.2d stating action is terminated.” than that the rather only Legislature intended "persuaded that the We were at 703-04. Legislature made a because the 'guilty' decisions to be reviewable requirements guilt prerequisite other needed finding for the Legislature other- ripe intended for review. If render a decision wise, the same or similar certainly knew how to include then it findings guilty,' it did for the discussing of ‘not as language when Legislature expressly contrary, stated findings 'guilty.' To ” 909 A.2d guilty’ finding the action.' Id. 'terminates that a 'not at 704. *21 no present case because there is inapposite to the Anderson is providing Compensation Act for analogous section in the Workers’ any brought Act. If the case has under the of an action “termination” here, right to that there is no the conclusion relevance it bolsters decision not judicial review of the Commission’s petition for immediate 548
sion’s refusal to refer case to the granted Willis’s Division (2) denied a to the County, County “aggrieved” benefit the is (3) 9-737, § pursuant to whether the Commission’s deci- sion disposed finally case then before it. previously,
As noted
the Commission’s decision did not
grant or
deny
County.
benefit to the
It
denied the
merely
request
Commission’s
to refer the case to the
That
Division.
decision
not equivalent
to what we described in Murray
was
“a grant
as
of an award under
Compensation
[the Workers’
Act],
thereto;
is,
something equivalent
something
Murray, awarded
the Commission.”
Md. at
n.
Sautter,
yet chose not to.
549 fraud, reports the case If the finds the Division 471. Division the Md.Code Attorney Attorney or General. to the State’s 2-405(2)(i). 2009), § There (1995, Ins. Supp. & Repl. Vol. or Compensation the Act indication in either Workers’ is no the the Commission to by that referral the Insurance Article an individual who reporting the method of Division is exclusive of a fraud in the context committed insurance Workers’ has of § 9-1106 the Labor Considering that Compensation case. subjects knowingly “who Employment person Article and of attempts] compen knowingly payment or to affect affect[s] sation, fees, under means of a this title expenses or no representation” penalties, to criminal there is fraudulent through the Com suppose process reason to that referral County get to at only is the mechanism the Willis’s mission fraud.14 could аdvise the Office alleged Attorney The Attorney’s Attorney or the State General Office of State’s A of a to it fraud has occurred. denial referral believes investigation launch of agency another state to its own employer The deci claimant “out-of-court.” hardly puts foreclose, law, any County’s not a matter did as of sion County’s or to rights ability affect the pecuniary property a claim pursue alternatively. or defense decision
Finally, present Commission’s not still may case does of claim. seek dispose § litigate to re pursuant reimbursement 9-310.1 Willis’s quest temporary disability total benefits. We note that every rights “not administrative order which determines flow, liabilities, legal is final and consequences from which final, subject Generally, review. to be judicial thus to nothing administrative order must also ‘leave further for do.’” agency Holiday Spas, to 315 Md. at A.2d at Relations, on at (quоting Md. Comm’n Human 296 Md. 211). legal 459 A.2d though consequences Even some is, person provides Section who violates the section 9-1106 conviction, upon subject penalties § of to the of 7-104 the Criminal Article, general penalties provisions and for the Law which contains (2002 2009), Supp. & Crim. Law. 7-104. offense theft. Md.Code may flow from the Commission’s decision not to refer the case Division, to the the Commission’s decision did not resolve the fraud, matter of whether Willis committed leaving nothing Therefore, further for the Commission do. we hold that the Commission’s decision was not a final order subject judicial review and that there is no right review inherent decisions requests rendered on for referral made under 9- *23 310.2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUN- TY; IN COSTS AND IN THIS COURT THE COURT OF SPECIAL TO BE PAID BY APPEALS RESPONDENT.
ADKINS, J., Dissents.
ADKINS, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from
majority
opinion for the
Hollander,
reasons set forth
judge
writing
the Court of
this case. See Montgomery County v.
Special
Appeals
Willis,
(2009).
187 Md.App.