Blankenship v. State of Md./MTA

Panel: Berger, Arthur, Friedman, JJ. Berger, J. ²⁴⁸ This case is before us on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting summary judgment in favor of the Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA"), appellee. We are asked to determine whether the MTA is entitled to apply disability retirement benefits owed to Danny Blankenship ("Claimant"), appellant, as a credit to workers' compensation benefits also owed to him. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission") determined that the MTA was not entitled to the statutory offset provided in Md. Code (1991, 2008 Repl.

Vol.), § 9-610 of the Labor & Employment Article ("LE"). On judicial review, the circuit court reversed the Commission, determining that the LE § 9-610 offset does apply. On appeal to this Court, Claimant alleges that the circuit court's ruling was erroneous and presents a single issue for our consideration, which we have rephrased slightly as follows: Whether the MTA is entitled to an offset under LE § 9-610 when an employee of the MTA is awarded both disability retirement benefits and permanent partial disability workers' compensation benefits for the same accident. ²⁴⁹ For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On March 1, 2012, Claimant, a 26-year employee of the MTA, suffered an accidental injury at work.

Following the injury, Claimant applied for MTA disability retirement. His MTA disability retirement was approved, effective August 1, 2013. Claimant also filed a claim with the Commission and was awarded workers' compensation benefits for permanent partial disability. Claimant currently receives $724.00 per week in workers' compensation benefits.

In addition, Claimant receives $490.67 per week in disability retirement from the MTA pension system. The extent of Claimant's injury and the amount of Claimant's award are not at issue in this appeal. Before the Commission, the MTA and its insurer, the Injured Workers' Insurance Fund (collectively, "MTA"), requested that the Commission allow an offset from the permanent partial disability benefits ⁷⁵⁴ pursuant to LE § 9-610. The MTA asserted that the statutory offset applied because Claimant was concurrently receiving disability retirement benefits for the same injuries.

The Commission denied the MTA's request for an offset. The Commissioner explained, in a written decision, that there was "ambiguity" as to whether the MTA's pension system was administered by the MTA itself or by the Board of Trustees for the State Retirement and Pension System (the "Board of Trustees"). 1 The Commissioner determined that it was appropriate to resolve the ambiguity in favor of Claimant in light of the "long standing proposition that the Workers Compensation statute should be liberally construed in favor of injured workers in order to effectuate its benevolent purpose." The MTA filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Claimant and the MTA filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the circuit ²⁵⁰ court reversed the decision of the Commission and found that the statutory offset in LE § 9-610 was applicable to Claimant's benefits.

The circuit court, after reviewing the governing law, determined that there was no ambiguity as to the administration of the MTA pension. The circuit court found "that the MTA administers its own plan and ... the MTA plan is not part of the State Retirement Pension System." This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW The entry of summary judgment is governed by Maryland Rule 2-501, which provides: The court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Md. Rule 2-501(f).

The Court of Appeals has articulated the appellate standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment as follows: On review of an order granting summary judgment, our analysis "begins with the determination [of] whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists; only in the absence of such a dispute will we review questions of law." D'Aoust v. Diamond , 424 Md. 549 , 574, 36 A.3d 941 , 955 (2012) (quoting Appiah v. Hall , 416 Md. 533 , 546, 7 A.3d 536 , 544 (2010) ); O'Connor v. Balt. Cnty. , 382 Md. 102 , 110, 854 A.2d 1191 , 1196 (2004). If no genuine dispute of material fact exists, this Court determines "whether the Circuit Court correctly entered summary judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of the Gables on Tuckerman Condo. , 404 Md. 560 , 571, 948 A.2d 11 , 18 (2008) (citations omitted). Thus, "[t]he standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment on the law is de novo , that is, whether the trial court's legal conclusions ²⁵¹ were legally correct." D'Aoust , 424 Md. at 574 , 36 A.3d at 955 .

Koste v. Town of Oxford , 431 Md. 14 , 24-25, 63 A.3d 582 , 589 (2013). In an appeal of a workers' compensation case, when the issue presented is an issue of law, "we review the decision de novo , without deference to the decisions of ⁷⁵⁵ either the Commission or the circuit court." Long v. Injured Workers' Ins. Fund , 225 Md. App. 48 , 57, 123 A.3d 562 (2015) (citing Gross v. Sessinghause & Ostergaard, Inc. , 331 Md. 37 , 45-48, 626 A.2d 55 (1993) ). Because this case presents only issues of law, we apply the de novo standard of review.

DISCUSSION The narrow issue before us in this appeal is whether LE § 9-610 applies to offset Claimant's benefits. 2 Section 9-610 provides: (a)(1) Except for benefits subject to an offset under § 29-118 of the State Personnel and Pensions Article , if a statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, regulation, or policy, regardless of whether part of a pension system, provides a benefit to a covered employee of a governmental unit or a quasi-public corporation that is subject to this title under ²⁵² § 9-201(2) of this title or, in case of death, to the dependents of the covered employee, payment of the benefit by the employer satisfies, to the extent of the payment, the liability of the employer and the Subsequent Injury Fund for payment of similar benefits under this title. (Emphasis added.) Claimant asserts that his benefits are subject to the offset set forth in Md. Code (1993, 2015 Repl. Vol.), § 29-118 of the State Personnel & Pensions Article ("SPP"), and, therefore, LE § 9-610 does not apply. In ruling for Claimant, the Commissioner adopted this position.

The MTA asserts that the SPP § 29-118 offset does not apply, and, therefore, the LE § 9-610 offset does apply. The circuit court adopted this argument in granting the MTA's motion for summary judgment. Before delving into the question of whether SPP § 29-118 applies, we discuss briefly the longstanding policy of the State of Maryland to prevent double recovery for a single injury. Indeed, "Maryland law has long provided for the offset of workers' compensation benefits against certain other benefits." Zakwieia v. Baltimore Cty., Bd. of Educ. , 231 Md. App. 644 , 651, 153 A.3d 888 , cert. denied , 454 Md. 676 , 165 A.3d 472 (2017).

"[F]rom the inception of the Workmen's Compensation law, the General Assembly was concerned with, and attempted to prohibit, governmental authorities being obliged to pay benefits to an employee twice as a result of the same injury." Nooe v. City of Baltimore , 28 Md. App. 348 , 352, 345 A.2d 134 (1975). In State Retirement and Pension Systems of Maryland v. Thompson , the Court of Appeals discussed the way in which SPP § 29-118 and LE § 9-610 each operate to prevent double recovery: ⁷⁵⁶ Maryland law precludes a government employee from collecting duplicative benefits for the same work-related disability under both the workers' compensation law and the employer's retirement system. If the employee is covered by SRPS [State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland], the basic disability benefits payable by SRPS are reduced ²⁵³ by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received by the employee. Maryland Code, § 29-118(b)(1) of the State Personnel and Pensions Article (SPP) requires the Board of Trustees of SRPS to reduce disability retirement benefits otherwise payable to the former employee by the amount of any related workers' compensation benefits paid or payable after the effective date of retirement.

If the employee is covered by some other public employment plan that provides disability benefits, it is the workers' compensation benefits that get reduced. Section 9-601(a) of the Labor & Employment Article (LE) provides, in that situation, that payment of the disability retirement benefit satisfies, to the extent of the payment, the employer's liability for workers' compensation benefits. 368 Md. 53 , 55-56, 792 A.2d 277 (2002). Although LE § 9-610 and SPP § 29-118 each operate to prevent double recovery, they operate differently. The LE § 9-610 offset operates by reducing workers' compensation benefits and leaving pension benefits unaffected.

Pursuant to LE § 9-610, the Commission reduces a workers' compensation award by the amount of an injured employee's disability retirement pension. The SPP § 29-118 offset, in contrast, reduces pension benefits but leaves workers' compensation benefits unaffected. Unlike the LE § 9-610 offset, the SPP § 29-118 offset is administered by the Board of Trustees. The statute provides, in relevant part: (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, this section applies to a retiree and any designated beneficiary. * * * (b)(1) The Board of Trustees shall reduce an accidental or special disability retirement benefit [ 3 ] by any related ²⁵⁴ workers' compensation benefits paid or payable after the effective date of retirement if the workers' compensation benefits: (i) are paid or payable while a pension is paid or payable; and (ii) are for an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of the retiree's employment by a participating employer.

(2) A retirement allowance may not be reduced: (i) to be less than the sum of the retiree's annuity and the amount authorized to be deducted for health insurance premiums; or (ii) for workers' compensation benefits that are reimbursements for legal fees, medical expenses, or other payments made to third parties and not to the retiree. SPP § 29-118. (Emphasis supplied). Whether the offset set forth in LE § 9-610 is applicable to Claimant's benefits turns on our interpretation of SPP § 29-118 because the LE § 9-610 offset is expressly ⁷⁵⁷ inapplicable to "benefits subject to an offset under § 29-118 of the State Personnel and Pensions Article." LE § 9-610(a)(1).

In order for the SPP § 29-118 offset to apply, Claimant's pension must be part of the State Retirement and Pension System. SPP § 21-102 provides: The State Retirement and Pension System consists of: (1) the Correctional Officers' Retirement System, established on July 1, 1974; (2) the Employees' Pension System, established on January 1, 1980; (3) the Employees' Retirement System, established on October 1, 1941; (4) the Judges' Retirement System, which consists of: ²⁵⁵ (i) the contributory plan, established on July 1, 1969; and (ii) the noncontributory plan, established on April 7, 1904; (5) the Legislative Pension Plan; (6) the Local Fire and Police System, established on July 1, 1989; (7) the Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System, established on July 2, 1990; (8) the State Police Retirement System, established on July 1, 1949; (9) the Teachers' Pension System, established on January 1, 1980; (10) the Teachers' Retirement System, established on August 1, 1927; and (11) any other system or subsystem that the Board of Trustees administers. (Emphasis supplied.) Claimant asserts that the Board of Trustees "administers" the MTA pension system, and, therefore, the MTA pension system falls under the definition set forth in SPP § 21-102(11). The MTA argues that the MTA pension system is not administered by the Board of Trustees.

As we shall explain, we agree with the MTA. Pursuant to Md. Code (1977, 2015 Repl. Vol.), § 7-206(b)(2)(ii) of the Transportation Article ("TA"), the MTA "may ... [e]stablish and maintain an independent system of pensions and retirement benefits for its employees." 4 Pursuant to TA § 7-206(b)(2)(ii), the MTA has established its own pension system, which is set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the Local 1300 Amalgamated Transit Union and the MTA. The collective bargaining agreement includes ²⁵⁶ language specifically differentiating between the MTA plan and the State Retirement and Pensions Systems plan and providing for the transfer from one plan to the