Bd. of Education v. Sanders

Board of Education of Harford County, et al. v. Linda A. Sanders, Case No. 111, September Term 2020. Opinion filed on March 31, 2021, by Berger, J. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE – JUDICIAL REMEDIES AND REVIEW – PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN REVIEW – APPEAL AND ERROR – MOTION TO REOPEN Where a party requests that the Workers’ Compensation Commission reopen her claim, a refusal to reopen is not subject to judicial review. So long as the Workers’ Compensation Commission does not consider the merits of a claimant’s argument or rely on new evidence in the issuance of a new or amended order, its previous decision stands unimpeached as of its original date. The trial court erred in denying a party’s motion to dismiss a petition for judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Commission decision to summarily deny a party’s request to reopen her claim.

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CV-19-000093 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 111 September Term, 2020 ______________________________________ BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, ET AL. v. LINDA A. SANDERS ______________________________________ Berger, Gould, Eyler, Deborah S., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Berger, J. ______________________________________ Filed: March 31, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-03-31 11:38-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk This case arises from a workers’ compensation claim filed by Linda A. Sanders (“Sanders”), Appellee, and a subsequent petition for judicial review of a denial of her request to reopen and modify her workers’ compensation case. Sanders alleged that she incurred an injury in her workplace while employed by Appellants, the Board of Education of Harford County and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (“Appellants”). On March 10, 2020, the Circuit Court for Harford County issued an order granting Sanders’ motion for summary judgment and denying Appellants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Further, the trial court remanded the case to the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) to exercise its discretion in considering Sanders’ request to reopen and modify her workers’ compensation claim.

Appellants appealed from the circuit court’s order and present one question for our review,1 which we have rephrased as follows: Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment by holding that the Commission’s denial of Sanders’ request to reopen and modify her claim required specific language showing an exercise of discretion and that the Commission’s denial was subject to judicial review. 1 Appellants’ original question presented is as follows: Did the Circuit Court err when it denied Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss and, later, Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, by holding that the Workers’ Compensation Commission was required to hold a hearing, consider the Appellee’s 2018 request for modification of its June 25, 2015 Order and document its exercise of discretion? For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse and remand the judgment of the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On October 7, 2014, Sanders was working as a school bus driver for Appellants. While working, Sanders attempted to lift a disabled child in a wheelchair onto a school bus.

While Sanders was lifting the wheelchair, the student twisted Sanders’ hair through her fingers and dug her fist into Sanders’ head while pulling her head down. While bent over, Sanders attempted to escape from the student’s grasp and sustained injuries to her neck and left shoulder. Years later, Sanders’ surgeon described Sanders’ injury as a “torsional twisting injury.” On November 17, 2014, Sanders filed a claim with the Commission for workers’ compensation benefits. On June 15, 2015, the Commission held a full evidentiary hearing where both Sanders and Appellants presented testimony and other evidence.

On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued an Order reflecting that Sanders was paid temporary total disability from October 8, 2014 to December 18, 2014. Sanders’ average weekly wage during that time was $748.61. Additionally, the Commission denied Sanders’ additional claim for temporary total disability. Further, the Commission granted Sanders’ request for authorization for four additional weeks of physical therapy for her left shoulder.

Finally, the Commission denied Sanders’ requests for authorization for surgery to the left shoulder, authorization for referral to a spine specialist, and authorization for an EMG/NCS. At the time, Sanders did not file a petition for judicial review of the 2 Commission’s decision. Sanders underwent surgery on her left shoulder on September 30, 2015, using her personal health insurance to pay the costs. More than three years later, on October 15, 2018, Sanders filed a request for modification of the June 25, 2015 Order.

Sanders sought modification pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Labor and Employment § 9-736. Sanders attached to the request a report from Dr. Anand Murthi (“Dr. Murthi”) regarding her shoulder surgery and sought payment of Dr. Murthi’s bills. Sanders had seen Dr. Murthi for the first time on September 3, 2015, prior to his performance of the surgery on her left shoulder. On October 16, 2018, the Commission denied Sanders’ request for modification without holding a hearing.

On November 20, 2018, Sanders filed a petition for judicial review with the Circuit Court for Harford County.2 On December 20, 2018, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the appeal was untimely, and that Sanders had no right to judicial review of the Commission’s decision. The trial court granted Appellants’ motion on January 7, 2019 without explaining the reasons for dismissing the case. On January 3, 2019, Sanders filed an additional request for modification of the Commission’s June 25, 2015 Order. Sanders requested identical relief, namely, payment of Dr. Murthi’s medical bills.

Nevertheless, this time, Sanders attached a deposition transcript of Dr. Murthi related to a state disability retirement claim. At no time did Sanders assert a worsening condition related to the shoulder surgery following her injury. In his deposition, Dr. Murthi testified that he believed Sanders required a total left shoulder 2 See Sanders v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty., Circuit Court for Harford County, Case No. C-12-CV-18-000934. 3 replacement surgery. On January 4, 2019, the Commission denied Sanders’ second request for modification without holding a hearing.

On January 31, 2019, Sanders filed a petition for judicial review with the Circuit Court for Harford County. On February 26, 2019, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Sanders had no right to judicial review of the Commission’s decision not to reopen her claim. On March 13, 2019, Sanders filed an opposition to Appellants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that she had the right to petition for judicial review from the Commission’s decision. On September 27, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

The trial court held the matter sub curia for the submission of additional written arguments requested by the court. On October 21, 2019, the trial court issued a Memorandum Opinion and subsequently issued an order denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss. On November 7, 2019, Appellants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The circuit court denied the motion.

On January 10, 2020, Sanders filed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Appellants responded and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On January 31, 2020, the trial court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Appellants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and granting Sanders’ motion for summary judgment. On February 5, 2020, Sanders filed a motion to revise the trial court’s Memorandum Opinion.

Later, on March 10, 2020, the trial court issued an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order correcting a clerical error regarding the date 4 of the second request for modification filed by Sanders with the Commission.3 The trial court remanded the case to the Commission with directions to consider Sanders’ request for modification and to include any exercise of discretion in its decision. Appellants noted a timely appeal to this Court on March 27, 2020. DISCUSSION Standard of Review Generally, “[i]n an appeal from judicial review of an agency action, we look through the decision of the circuit court and review the agency’s decision directly.” W. Montgomery Cnty. Citizens Ass’n v. Montgomery Cnty.

Plan. Bd. of the Md.-Nat’l Park & Plan. Comm’n, 248 Md. App. 314 , 332–33 (2020) (citing Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Def. Fund, Inc. v. Donaldson Props., 453 Md. 516, 532 (2017)).

Notably, we “give considerable weight to the agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers.” Mayor of Rockville v. Pumphrey, 218 Md. App. 160 , 194 3 Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment from which the appeal is taken. Md. Rule 8-202(a). Nevertheless, “[i]n a civil action, when a timely motion is filed pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534, the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry” of a withdrawal of the motion or an order denying or disposing of the motion. Md. Rule 8-202(c).

Critically, Maryland Rule 8-202(c) “also extends the time period for noting an appeal to this court when a party files a revisory motion under Rule 2-535 within 10 days after entry of judgment.” Estate of Vess, 234 Md. App. 173, 194 (2017). Here, the trial court’s Memorandum Opinion was docketed on February 3, 2020. Sanders filed a motion to revise under Maryland Rule 2- 535(d) on February 5, 2020, within ten days of entry of judgment. Therefore, the time to file the notice of appeal was extended to thirty days after Sanders’ withdrew her motion or the trial court issued an order disposing of the motion.

The trial court’s Amended Memorandum Opinion, disposing of Sanders’ motion, was docketed on March 11, 2020. Therefore, both parties were required to file a notice of appeal within thirty days, or by April 10, 2020. Appellants filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 2020. Accordingly, Appellants’ appeal was timely. 5 (2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Further, we “afford the Commission a degree of deference, as appropriate, in its formal interpretations of the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Montgomery Cnty. v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 60 (2011) (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, “we may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” Watkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 377 Md. 34, 46 (2003) (internal citations omitted).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court accepts “all well-pled facts in the complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Converge Servs. Grp., LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462, 475 (2004) (internal citations omitted). Courts will only find that dismissal is proper “if the alleged facts and permissible inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff.” Pendleton v. State, 398 Md. 447, 459 (2007) (internal citations omitted). On review, we look to determine if the trial court was legally correct in its decision to grant or deny the motion to dismiss.

Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 400 Md. 1, 21 (2007). We review a circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment on a question of law de novo.

Laing v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 180 Md. App. 136 , 152–53 (2008). We focus on whether the trial court’s decision was legally correct. Id. We are obligated to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there is a genuine dispute of a material fact.

Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281, 294 (2007). 6 I. The trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss because the Commission has broad discretion to summarily deny a request to reopen and such a denial is not subject to judicial review. Section 9-736(b) of the Labor and Employment Article of the Maryland Code provides: (b) (1) The Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction over each claim under this title: (2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Commission may modify any finding or order as the Commission considers justified. (3) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the Commission may not modify an award unless the modification is applied for within 5 years after the latter of: (i) the date of the accident; (ii) the date of disablement; or (iii) the last compensation payment. Md. Code (1991, 2016 Repl.

Vol.), § 9-736(b) of the Labor and Employment Article (“L&E”).4 “The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and, as a result, is generally interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant.” McLaughlin v. Gill Simpson Elec., 206 Md. App. 242, 253 (2012) (citing Harris v. Bd. of Educ., 375 Md. 21 , 37–38 (2003)). Although remedial statutes are normally given a liberal construction, “the predominant 4 The parties do not dispute that Sanders’ request was timely filed within 5 years of the date of the accident. See L&E § 9-736(b)(3)(i). 7 goal of th[is] Court is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent.” Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 383 Md. 489, 502 (2004). We must “construe the statute as a whole and interpret each of its provisions in the context of an entire statutory scheme.” Md. Ins.

Admin. v. Md. Individual Practice Ass’n, Inc., 129 Md. App. 348, 355 (1999) (internal citations omitted). “Where the statute in question contains no