Beechwood Coal Co. v. Lucas

²⁵¹ Brune, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Allegany County affirming the action of the State Industrial Accident Commission which had awarded the claimant compensation for injuries resulting in total disability from an occupational disease. William J. Lucas, claimant-appellee, fifty-four years of age, worked in the bituminous coal mines for thirty-four years of which the last six years, ending in February or March, 1955, were in the employ of the Beechwood Coal Company, appellant, or its predecessors. He quit work because of his physical inability to continue resulting from shortness of breath, difficulty in walking and moving around, pains in his chest and discomfort occurring when he lay down to retire every night.

He consulted his own physician, Dr. G. J. Richards, on February 15, 1955. Dr. Richards diagnosed his illness as pneumoconiosis, but did not so inform Lucas until after Lucas’ return in June from the Golden Clinic at Elkins, West Virginia, to which Dr. Richards referred him. On July 26, 1955, he filed a claim with the State Industrial Accident Commission for compensation for an injury to his lungs which resulted in a permanent disability arising out of and in the course of his employment by the appellant. A hearing was held before the Medical Board, and on March 20, 1956, that body issued its report finding that the claimant had not contracted an occupational disease within the terms of the occupational disease statute (Code, 1951, Art. 101, Secs. 21 et seq.).

Thereafter, a petition for review having been filed by the claimant, the record before the Medical Board was reviewed by the Commission which on August 16, 1956, reversed the findings of the Board and found that the claimant had contracted an occupational disease within the meaning of the law. Both sides agree that there are but two issues before this Court on appeal. The first one is, whether or not the State Industrial Accident Commission had the statutory authority to reverse the findings of the Medical Board. The second one (assuming that such authority did in fact exist) is, whether or not there was sufficient evidence in the case to ²⁵² sustain the Commission’s reversal of the findings of the-Medical Board.

We shall deal with these issues in the order-stated. From June 1, 1951, through May 31, 1955, that portion of Article 101, Section 28, which is pertinent here, read as-follows: “*.* * In the event that a petition for review by the State Industrial Accident Commission of the findings and report of the Medical Board has been filed, as herein provided, the State Industrial Accident Commission shall review the proceedings, findings and report of the Medical Board, and upon the record thus made shall render its decision or award upon all issues referred to the Medical Board, provided, however, that upon such review the findings of the Medical Board upon all medical questions shall be presumed to be correct and such findings shall not be set aside or reversed if there is legally sufficient evidence in the record to support such findings (Emphasis supplied). The proviso at the end of this Section which we have set-out here in italics was added by the Legislature by Chapter-287 of the Acts of 1951, which became effective on June 1st of that year. It remained unchanged until June 1, 1955..

On that date Chapter 82 of the Acts of 1955 became effective; it simply restored the statute to what it had been prior to June 1, 1951, by deleting the proviso added on that date. The first question thus is, whether the law in effect at the time of the injury or disability is controlling or whether the law as it existed at the time of the hearing before the - Medical Board and of the review of the record by the Commission should govern. The appellants’ contention is that the former statutory requirement that the Commission should' be bound by the findings of the Medical Board which relate to medical matters was a substantive right and, hence, that any legislative amendment changing this rule should not be-construed to operate retrospectively. Therefore, they con- - ²⁵³ tend, the law in effect at the date of disability should govern, and the subsequent change should not deprive them of the substantive right which they say accrued to them at the date of disability.

The trial judge agreed with this contention, basing his view upon Big Savage Refractories Corp. v. Geary, 209 Md. 362, 121 A. 2d 212 ; but he held the date of disability to be the time at which the claimant acquired knowledge of the exact nature of his ailment, which in this case he found was after June 1, 1955. Therefore, he decided that the statute as amended in 1955 should govern. We do not agree that the date of the injury or disability is controlling as to the effect to be given the findings of the Medical Board, or that the decision in the Big Savage Refractories case, supra, indicated a view that Chapter 82 of the Acts of 1955 altered substantive rights. In that case the hearing before the Medical Board took place in December, 1954, its findings were made on February 15, 1955, the case was heard by the Commission on April 1, 1955, and was decided on May 3, 1955.

The Commission reversed the Board on one of its medical findings. Chapter 82 of the Acts of 1955 was approved on March 24, 1955, but it did not become effective until June 1, 1955. This Court held that the prior law, Chapter 287 of the Acts of 1951, was in effect at the time of the Commission’s hearing and decision and was controlling as to the Commission’s power to review the findings of the Medical Board and that Chapter 82 of the Acts of 1955 “in no way governed the review by the Commission on May 3, 1955, when it passed its order because it was not in effect at that time.” (See 209 Md. 368, 372 .) It was also held that although the 1955 Act had become effective before the case was decided by the Circuit Court on appeal from the Commission, “the review of the court is limited to a review of the evidence before the Commission based upon the law in effect at that time.” “That time” refers to the time of the review by the Commission. (See 209 Md. 372 .) We think that the implication of that case is against the appellants’ contention.

A general rule of statutory construction is that, in the absence of a clear manifestation of a contrary intent, a statute ²⁵⁴ which adversely affects substantive rights will be assumed to operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. Johnson v. Johnson, 52 Md. 668 ; Ireland v. Shipley, 165 Md. 90 , 166 A. 593 ; Kelch v. Keehn, 183 Md. 140 , 36 A. 2d 544 . On the other hand, where the effect of the new statute is not to impair existing substantive rights but only to alter the procedural machinery involved in the enforcement of those rights, such legislation is usually construed as operating on all proceedings instituted after its passage, whether the right accrued before or after that date. Ireland v. Shipley, supra; Kelch v. Keehn, supra; 82 C. J. S., Statutes, Secs. 421, 432.

As to the legislative intent, we note that Code (1951), Art. 101, Sec. 21 (originally enacted by Ch. 465 of the Acts of 1939) after providing, subject to certain conditions, for compensation to employees or their dependents for disability or death resulting from an occupational disease as if such disability or death were the result of an accidental injury, “except as otherwise provided in Sections 21 to 29 hereof”, goes on to say: “and the practice and procedure prescribed elsewhere in this Article shall apply to proceedings for compensation for such diseases, except as in said Sections 21 to 29, and Sections 53, 57 and 68, as hereby amended, otherwise provided.” (Emphasis supplied.) The words “as hereby amended” were included in the original occupational disease compensation statute (Acts of 1939, Ch. 465), and what are Sections 21 to 29 in the 1951 Code are derived from that Act. Section 27, as enacted in 1939 and continuously since then has provided for initial hearings before the Medical Board in occupational disease cases and Section 28 has confined the Commission to the record before the Medical Board in reviewing issues referred to and reported upon by the Board. Section 53 was so amended in 1957 as to render the cross-reference to it no longer appropriate, but from 1939 to 1957 it prescribed a shorter period of limitations for filing an application to change or modify a final award in occupational disease cases than in other cases. Section 57, dealing with court review, as amended in 1939 and ever since that date, has provided that findings of fact made by the Commission in occupational disease cases shall not be ²⁵⁵ reviewed by the court or submitted to the jury.

Also since 1939, Section 68 (15) has contained definitions of “disablement” and “disability,” as used in Sections 21, 26, 27 and 28 of Article 101, and a provision that “disablement and disability in cases involving occupational diseases shall be determined by the Medical Board as herein provided in Sections 21-29 of this Article.” (All of the above references to section numbers are to the 1951 Edition of the Code.) From the above Sections we think it reasonably clear that the General Assembly regarded the provisions relating to hearings and findings by the Medical Board which are here involved as procedural. In Thomas v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 162 Md. 509 , 160 A. 793 , the Court held that an amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Acts of 1931, Ch. 406) requiring court review of the Commission’s actions to be confined to and based upon the record made before the Commission (or upon a stipulation of facts made by the parties) was applicable, even though the appeal by the claimant from the Commission’s action had been entered before the effective date of the amendment and was heard several months after the effective date. The Court was confronted there with much the same contention that is raised here by appellant, i. e., that the amendment worked a substantive change in the law adversely affecting rights which had already accrued to the claimant. The Court, in an opinion by Chief Judge Bond, held that the provision was “merely procedural”, and affirmed the action of the lower court in refusing to admit any testimony at the trial from the witnesses whom the claimant had produced to testify in his behalf.

Judges Offutt and Digges dissented on the construction of the statute. Judge Parke expressed his agreement with their dissent and also dissented on the ground that the majority construction of the statute constituted “a grave departure from precedent and authority to hold that a jury trial, as known to the common law, is no longer an indispensable prerequisite to the constitutionality of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.” The majority took the view that the Constitution did not require that any jury at all should be allowed ( 162 Md. 514 ), and also held that ²⁵⁶ it was not unconstitutional to give the statute a retrospective operation, stating ( 162 Md. 513 ) that “it deprives the appellant of no property or rights in an existing contract, and no right of action or ground of recovery. She is not denied the benefit of proof of the facts. The provision is merely procedural, * * *.” The Thomas case was followed in Celanese Corporation v. Lease, 162 Md. 587 , 160 A. 801 (which was referred to in the Thomas case, and the opinion in which was filed a few days later), and it was adhered to in Sinsko v. A. Weiskettel & Sons Co., 163 Md. 614 , 163 A. 851 .

(The statute upon which these cases were