Arbogast v. Baltimore County

WENNER, Judge. Appellant, Richard A. Arbogast, Sr., has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On appeal, he asks us “[whether] the Board of Appeals [erred] in finding that [his] emotional condition which resulted from [his] being subjected to police brutality charges did not constitute an accidental injury within the meaning of Baltimore County Code Section 20-20?” We shall answer appel ⁶⁷⁶ lant’s question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. BACKGROUND Appellant joined the Baltimore County Police Department in 1983.

On July 6, 1985, he responded to a call concerning a dispute between neighbors and made several arrests. Subsequently, one of those arrested charged appellant with brutality and misconduct. Appellant asserts that he developed symptoms of anxiety, including high blood pressure, within a few days after the charges were filed against him. Nonetheless, appellant was exonerated following an internal investigation, and, in 1987, became a member of the department’s canine unit.

Before becoming a member of the canine unit, appellant was required to undergo and passed a physical examination. In fact, appellant was submitted to a number of physical examinations from the time he joined the police department. His pre-employment physical revealed a family history of heart problems and hypertension. On several occasions, appellant’s blood pressure was found to be elevated and medication was prescribed.

In April of 1989, appellant sought an accidental disability retirement from the Employer’s Retirement System of Baltimore County, based upon hypertension and physical and mental problems that he contended resulted from the internal investigation to which he had been subjected. After appellant was granted an ordinary disability retirement, he appealed to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals. Following a hearing, the Board concluded that “The filing of a citizen’s complaint which Officer Arbogast indicates triggered his emotional upheaval is not an accidental injury as contemplated by Section 20-22 of the Baltimore County Code.” Appellant then noted an appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which affirmed the Board’s decision. This appeal followed. ⁶⁷⁷ I. According to appellant, the Board of Appeals erred as a matter of law in concluding that his disability was not the result of an accidental injury.

We disagree. Section 20-22 of the Baltimore County Code, discussing accidental disability benefits, provides in pertinent part: any member who has been totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place, without wilful negligence on his part, shall be retired by the board of trustees____ An “accidental injury” does not include “unexpected results not produced by accidental causes ... [the injury] must result from some unusual strain or exertion of the employee or some unusual condition of employment.” Minch v. Board of Trustees, 273 Md. 167, 170 , 327 A.2d 889 (1974), citing, Vaughan v. City of Baltimore, 229 Md. 547, 550-51 , 184 A.2d 842 (1962); see also, Belcher v. T. Rowe Price Foundation, Inc., 329 Md. 709, 745-746 , 621 A.2d 872 (1993); Board of Trustees v. Grandinetti, 269 Md. 733, 739 , 309 A.2d 764 (1973); Voss v. City of Baltimore, 246 Md. 345, 353 , 228 A.2d 295 (1967); Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, 199 Md. 156, 161 , 85 A.2d 795 (1952). In other words, an accidental injury in a case such as this is analogous to an accidental injury covered by Worker’s Compensation. Appellant asserts that Sargent v. Board of Educ., Baltimore Co., 49 Md.App. 577 , 433 A.2d 1209 (1981), supports his contention that, although conditions such as those encountered by him are part of his duties as a police officer, they can still be considered