Elec. Gen. Corp. v. LaBonte

Argued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ. Opinion by Watts, J. *¹¹⁸ The purpose of the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.) ("LE") §§ 9-101 to 9-1201, "is to protect workers and their families from hardships inflicted by work-related injuries by providing workers with compensation for loss of earning capacity resulting from accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment." Hollingsworth v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC , 448 Md. 648 , 655, 141 A.3d 90 , 94 (2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

For purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act, "an accidental injury that arises out of and in the course of employment" is known as an "accidental personal injury[.]" LE § 9-101(b)(1). The Workers' Compensation Act divides disabilities that are caused by accidental personal injuries into four categories: temporary partial disability (disability which is temporary in duration and partial in extent) ...; temporary total disability (disability which is temporary in duration but total in extent) ...; permanent partial disability (disability which is permanent in duration and partial in extent) ...; and permanent total disability (disability which is permanent in duration and total in extent)[.] Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes , 416 Md. 346 , 353 n.2, 7 A.3d 13 , 17 n.2 (2010). In this matter of first impression-where an employee suffered an accidental personal injury and incurred a subsequent ¹⁶¹ injury outside the course of employment, the Workers' Compensation Commission ("the Commission") awarded permanent partial disability benefits, and, later, the employee alleged a worsening of the employee's medical condition-we must decide whether the existence of a subsequent intervening *¹¹⁹ event finding by the Commission precluded the Commission from awarding additional permanent partial disability benefits and other workers' compensations benefits for worsening of the employee's condition. Michael L. LaBonte ("LaBonte"), Respondent, was an electrician who worked for Electrical General Corporation, Petitioner, which had workers' compensation insurance through Selective Insurance Company of America, Petitioner (together, "Electrical General").

LaBonte suffered an accidental personal injury to his back at work when he caught and pushed a large ladder that had been falling down. LaBonte filed a claim for workers' compensation and multiple Issues 1 with the Commission, seeking temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits, both of which the Commission awarded. Later, LaBonte was injured outside of the workplace in an unrelated matter. Specifically, a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that LaBonte had been driving outside the course of his employment.

According to LaBonte, during the traffic stop, the law enforcement officer grabbed him and pushed him down onto the vehicle, causing his existing back pain to be aggravated. LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission again, seeking additional temporary total disability benefits. The Commission issued an Order denying LaBonte's request, observing that he had been "involved in a subsequent event on" the date of the incident with the law enforcement officer. LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission again, this time seeking permanent partial disability benefits.

In an Award of Compensation, the Commission awarded LaBonte permanent partial disability benefits, finding that his disability was partly due to his *¹²⁰ accidental personal injury- i.e. , his work-related injury-and partly due to "pre-existing and subsequent conditions[.]" Years later, LaBonte filed a Petition to Reopen 2 with the Commission, alleging that his back condition had worsened, and requesting additional permanent partial disability benefits. The Commission granted the Petition to Reopen, but found that there had not been a worsening of LaBonte's back condition that was causally related to his accidental personal injury because the Commission's previous Order and Award of Compensation established a "subsequent intervening event" that broke ¹⁶² the "causal nexus" between LaBonte's accidental personal injury and his existing back condition. LaBonte filed a Petition for Judicial Review. In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, a jury found that LaBonte's accidental personal injury was the cause of the recent worsening of LaBonte's back condition.

Electrical General noted an appeal, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the incident with the law enforcement officer did not preclude Electrical General's liability for the worsening of LaBonte's back condition. Before us, Electrical General argues that, where an employee suffers both an accidental personal injury that causes a permanent partial disability and a subsequent intervening event- e.g. , an injury sustained outside the course of employment-a finding that the employee has incurred a subsequent intervening event precludes the accidental personal injury from being the proximate cause of worsening of the disability. In other words, Electrical General asserts that a finding that *¹²¹ an employee sustained a subsequent intervening injury forecloses an employer's further liability for permanent partial disability benefits and other workers' compensation benefits due to an alleged worsening of the employee's condition. As explained below, in our view, Electrical General conflates the law that applies to a temporary disability with the law that applies to a permanent disability.

Liability for a temporary disability depends on the injury that occurred last. See Martin v. Allegany Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 73 Md.App. 695 , 700, 536 A.2d 132 , 134 (1988).

By contrast, liability for a permanent disability is to be apportioned among all of the injuries that caused the permanent disability, not just the injury that occurred last. See LE § 9-656. Applying these principles, we hold that, where the Commission has awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on an accidental personal injury or occupational disease and has also determined that the employee incurred a subsequent intervening event- e.g. , an injury sustained outside the course of employment-upon a request to reopen alleging worsening of the employee's medical condition, the employee is entitled to compensation for permanent partial disability for any portion of such disability that is caused by and reasonably attributable solely to the employee's accidental personal injury or occupational disease. Stated otherwise, where an employee has incurred both accidental personal injury or occupational disease, and a subsequent intervening injury, and the Workers' Compensation Commission has apportioned permanent partial disability benefits for an accidental personal injury or occupational disease, the existence of a subsequent intervening event finding does not preclude the Commission from awarding additional permanent partial disability benefits for worsening of the employee's condition caused by and reasonably attributable solely to the accidental personal injury or occupational disease.

Further, the existence of a subsequent intervening event does not, per se , preclude an employer's liability for workers' compensation benefits. An employer may be liable for workers' compensation benefits where an employee demonstrates that a worsening of the employee's medical condition was *¹²² caused by an accidental personal injury or occupational disease. And, the issues of whether an accidental personal injury or occupational disease, or a subsequent intervening event, caused a worsening of an employee's medical condition, and whether, for purposes of permanent partial disability benefits, a worsening of an employee's medical condition was reasonably attributable solely to an accidental personal ¹⁶³ injury or occupational disease, are factual matters for the Commission to determine in each individual case. BACKGROUND Accidental Personal Injury, Claim, and Initial Issues On September 2, 2004, while on the job, LaBonte and a helper maneuvered a 40-foot ladder that weighed more than 300 pounds.

The ladder started to fall, and LaBonte caught it and pushed it back up. LaBonte felt something shift in his back. Later, LaBonte began experiencing constant back pain, and it was determined that LaBonte had suffered a herniated disc. LaBonte was either not working, or working in "a light duty position," throughout nearly all of the period from September 13, 2004 to December 19, 2006.

During that period, on May 24, 2006, LaBonte underwent back surgery. On September 27, 2004, LaBonte filed a claim for workers' compensation with the Commission, requesting temporary total disability benefits, medical treatment, and medical expenses. On June 15, 2005, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Award of Compensation dated June 22, 2005, the Commission found that, on September 2, 2014, LaBonte had suffered an accidental personal injury that caused a disability.

The Commission did not specify the type of disability that LaBonte's accidental personal injury had caused. The Commission reserved on the issue of temporary total disability benefits because no medical documentation had been submitted. The Commission granted LaBonte's requests for medical treatment and medical expenses. LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission, requesting additional medical treatment in the form of a neurological consult; *¹²³ temporary partial disability benefits from March 18, 2005 to October 21, 2005; and temporary total disability benefits from September 13, 2004 to October 24, 2004, from November 23, 2004 to December 30, 2004, from February 24, 2005 to March 17, 2005, and from October 21, 2005 onward.

On October 21, 2005, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Order dated November 10, 2005, the Commission granted LaBonte's request for additional medical treatment, and awarded LaBonte all of the temporary partial disability benefits that he had requested. The Commission reserved on LaBonte's request for temporary total disability benefits from October 21, 2005 onward; denied LaBonte's request for temporary total disability benefits from March 8, 2005 to March 17, 2005; and awarded LaBonte all of the other temporary total disability benefits that he had requested. LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission a second time, requesting additional medical treatment that his physician had recommended, and temporary total disability benefits from January 5, 2006 onward.

On March 10, 2006, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Order dated March 15, 2006, the Commission granted LaBonte's request for additional medical treatment, and awarded LaBonte temporary total disability benefits starting on January 5, 2006, and continuing as long as he remained temporarily totally disabled as a result of his accidental personal injury. LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission a third time, requesting temporary total disability benefits from March 18, 2005 to October 21, 2005, and temporary partial disability benefits from March 18, 2005 onward. On June 29, 2006, the Commission conducted a hearing.

In an Order dated July 20, 2006, the Commission awarded LaBonte all of the temporary total ¹⁶⁴ disability benefits that he had requested, and denied LaBonte's request for temporary partial disability benefits. Incident with the Law Enforcement Officer and Subsequent Issues On December 31, 2006, a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that LaBonte had been driving outside *¹²⁴ the course of employment. LaBonte was unable to perform sobriety tests to the officer's satisfaction, and the officer arrested and handcuffed LaBonte. According to LaBonte, the handcuffs came loose, and the officer grabbed LaBonte and pushed him down onto the vehicle.

According to LaBonte, after the incident with the law enforcement officer, his back pain was aggravated. On January 15, 2007, a doctor recommended that LaBonte be placed on off-work status, and scheduled another appointment for February 5, 2007. Sometime after the February 5, 2007 appointment, LaBonte returned to work. LaBonte was prescribed medication and exercise, but no additional surgery was performed on his back.

LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission a fourth time, requesting temporary total disability benefits from January 4, 2007 to March 9, 2007 and additional medical treatment in the form of lumbar epidural injections. On March 9, 2007, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Order dated March 30, 2007, the Commission found that LaBonte's need for lumbar epidural injections was not causally related to his accidental personal injury. The Commission further stated that LaBonte had been "involved in a subsequent event on December 31, 2006"- i.e. , the date of the incident with the law enforcement officer-and denied LaBonte's requests for temporary total disability benefits and additional medical treatment.

LaBonte filed Issues with the Commission a fifth time, requesting temporary total disability benefits from February 11, 2006 to March 20, 2006; temporary partial disability benefits from October 6, 2006 to December 19, 2006; permanent partial disability benefits from December 20, 2006 onward; and expenses for medical treatment that he had received between January 15, 2007 and March 5, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Award of Compensation dated October 15, 2007, the Commission found that LaBonte had "overall 30% industrial [permanent partial] disability to the body due to an injury to the *¹²⁵ back; 20% is due to [his] accidental [personal] injury, and 10% is causally connected to pre-existing and subsequent conditions[.]" The Commission awarded LaBonte all of the temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits that he had requested. The Commission awarded LaBonte permanent partial disability benefits in the form of $247 weekly, starting on December 20, 2006, and continuing for 100 weeks, and denied LaBonte's request for medical expenses that had been incurred between January 15, 2007 and March 5, 2007.

Petition to Reopen Approximately five years later, on October 10, 2012, LaBonte filed a Petition to Reopen with the Commission, alleging that his back condition had worsened, and requesting additional medical treatment, payment of medical expenses that he had incurred on February 16, 2012, and additional permanent partial disability benefits. The Commission granted the Petition to Reopen. On January 16, 2013, the Commission conducted a hearing. In an Order dated January 24, 2013, the Commission found that there had not been a worsening of LaBonte's back condition that was causally related to his accidental personal injury ¹⁶⁵ because the Commission's Order dated March 30, 2007 and its Award of Compensation dated October 15, 2007 "establish[ed] a subsequent intervening event [that] breaks the causal nexus between the accidental [personal] injury and the [existing back] condition." The Commission denied LaBonte's requests for additional medical treatment, medical expenses, and additional permanent partial disability benefits.

Proceedings in the Circuit Court LaBonte filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ("the circuit court"). Electrical General filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that, as a matter of law, the Commission's orders *¹²⁶ precluded a finding that LaBonte's accidental personal injury caused his back condition's worsening. The circuit court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

At a jury trial, in a video deposition, Michael Franchetti, M.D., testified as an expert witness for LaBonte in the fields of orthopedic surgery and medicine. Dr. Franchetti testified that he examined LaBonte at his counsel's request on two occasions-first on May 22, 2007, and second on September 18, 2012. 3 During the first examination, Dr. Franchetti determined that LaBonte had 43% "whole person impairment due to" his accidental personal injury. During the second examination, Dr. Franchetti determined that LaBonte's whole person impairment had increased to 53%. Dr. Franchetti testified that the incident with the law enforcement officer did not result in any permanent worsening of LaBonte's back condition, and that LaBonte's back condition was causally related to his accidental personal injury. 4 In another video deposition, Edward R. Cohen, M.D., testified as an expert witness for Electrical General in the fields of orthopedic surgery and medicine.

Dr. Cohen testified that he examined LaBonte at Electrical General's request on two occasions-first in 2004, and second in 2014. Dr. Cohen opined that, in light of the incident with the law enforcement officer, LaBonte's existing back condition was not causally related to his accidental personal injury. Using a special verdict sheet, the jury found that LaBonte's existing back condition was causally related to his accidental personal injury; that 100% of the worsening of LaBonte's permanent partial disability since October 15, 2007 was due to *¹²⁷ his accidental personal injury; that LaBonte's request for medical treatment was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to his accidental personal injury; and that LaBonte's request for medical expenses that he had incurred on February 16, 2012 was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to his accidental personal injury. The circuit court reversed the Commission's January 24, 2013 order and remanded with instructions to issue an order consistent with the jury's verdict.

Electrical General filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the circuit ¹⁶⁶ court denied. Electrical General noted an appeal. Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the incident with the law enforcement officer "did not, per se , preclude further liability on the part of [Electrical General] for the permanent partial injury [that LaBonte] sustained on the job." Elec. Gen.

Corp. v. LaBonte , 229 Md.App. 187 , 196, 208, 144 A.3d 856 , 861, 868, reconsideration denied (Sept. 28, 2016). The Court of Special Appeals concluded that "there was sufficient proof that [LaBonte]'s back condition was caused by his [accidental personal injury] and not by the [ ] incident with the [law enforcement] officer." Id. at 197 , 144 A.3d at 862 (citation omitted). The Court of Special Appeals explained that "permanent disability benefits, unlike temporary disability benefits, can be caused by both an initial [accidental personal injury] and a subsequent accident so as to preserve the liability of the employer for that portion of the disability that is attributable to the initial accident." Id. at 201 , 144 A.3d at 864 . 5 *¹²⁸ Electrical General filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals was internally inconsistent and conflicted with precedent. The Court denied the motion.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Electrical General petitioned for a writ of certiorari , raising the following four issues: 1. Whether the previously determined finding that [LaBonte] sustained a subsequent intervening accident barred any further liability of [Electrical General] for workers' compensation benefits due to a prior [accidental personal] injury? 2. Whether the Circuit Court erred by allowing the jury to consider whether [LaBonte] sustained a subsequent intervening accident to his back because litigation of that issue was precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? 3. Whether the Circuit Court erred in submitting the jury question of whether [LaBonte]'s back condition was causally related to the [accidental personal] injury because the question was insufficient to resolve the factual disputes between the parties and improperly shifted the burden of proof to [Electrical General]? 4.

Whether the Circuit Court erred by allowing the jury to decide issues that were not previously decided by the [ ] Commission? This Court granted the petition. See Elec. Gen.

Corp. v. LaBonte , 450 Md. 662 , 150 A.3d 818 (2016). 6 ¹⁶⁷ *¹²⁹ DISCUSSION The Parties' Contentions Electrical General contends that it is not liable for permanent partial disability benefits or any other workers' compensation benefits due to the worsening of LaBonte's back condition because the Commission previously found the existence of a subsequent intervening act. Electrical General argues that it is undisputed that LaBonte sustained a subsequent intervening accident on December 31, 2006, and that the Commission found as much in its Order dated March 30, 2007 and its Award of Compensation dated October 15, 2007. Electrical General asserts that, because LaBonte suffered an accidental personal injury, and the Commission found that he incurred a subsequent injury outside the course of employment, the subsequent intervening accident severed the causal nexus between LaBonte's disability and the accidental personal injury. As such, Electrical General maintains that, although it was liable for the portion of LaBonte's back condition that was caused by his accidental personal injury, the subsequent intervening event-namely, the incident with the law enforcement officer-precluded its liability for any worsening of LaBonte's back condition.

Electrical General contends that the Commission's Order dated March 30, 2007 and its Award of Compensation dated October 15, 2007 constituted the law of the case because no party petitioned for judicial review of either decision. According to Electrical General, once the incident with the law enforcement officer was found to be a subsequent *¹³⁰ intervening event, as a matter of law, that event became the cause of any alleged additional disability. LaBonte requests that the Court affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals because his back condition's worsening was independent of the subsequent event. LaBonte contends that, where an accidental personal injury causes a permanent disability, the finding of a subsequent intervening event does not discharge the employer from any further responsibility under the Workers' Compensation Act.

LaBonte argues that the determination of a subsequent intervening event does not sever the causal relationship between the accidental personal injury and any worsening of the employee's medical condition. LaBonte notes that, unlike liability for temporary disability benefits, liability for permanent disability benefits may be apportioned among multiple injuries. Specifically, LaBonte observes that, under LE § 9-656(a), where it appears that an employee's permanent disability is partly due to an accidental personal injury and partly due to a preexisting condition, the Commission must determine the proportion of the permanent disability that is reasonably attributable to the accidental personal injury, and the proportion of the permanent disability that is reasonably attributable to the preexisting condition. LaBonte asserts that, irrespective of the Commission's Order dated March 30, 2007 and its Award of Compensation dated October 15, 2007, the jury had the authority to determine how much, if any, of the worsening of his back ¹⁶⁸ condition was caused by his accidental personal injury.

LaBonte maintains that the evidence adduced at trial supported the jury's finding that his accidental personal injury was the only cause of his back condition's worsening. LaBonte contends that adopting Electrical General's position would create a new legal rule and allow employers and insurers to escape liability for accidental personal injuries in situations in which a subsequent intervening event is not the cause of an employee's ongoing or worsening injury. LaBonte argues that such a result would be contrary to the Workers' Compensation Act's language and remedial purpose, which is *¹³¹ to provide compensation for lost earning capacity that results from accidental personal injuries. Standard of Review In an action for judicial review, this Court reviews the administrative agency's decision, not the decision of the circuit court or the Court of Special Appeals.

See Hollingsworth , 448 Md. at 654 , 141 A.3d at 93 . Although "the decision of the Commission is presumed to be prima facie correct [,]" LE § 9-745(b)(1), "this presumption does not extend to questions of law, which [this Court] review[s] independently." Hollingsworth , 448 Md. at 655 , 141 A.3d at 94 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also LE § 9-745(c)(3) ("The court shall determine whether the Commission ... misconstrued the law and facts applicable in the case decided."). This Court gives some deference to the Commission's interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Act "unless its conclusions are based upon an erroneous conclusion of law." Holmes , 416 Md. at 359 , 7 A.3d at 21 . The goal of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the General Assembly's intent.

See Hollingsworth , 448 Md. at 655 , 141 A.3d at 94 (citation omitted). If the ordinary and natural meaning of a statute's language makes the General Assembly's intent clear, the Court applies the statute's language. See id. at 655 , 141 A.3d at 94 . Because the Workers' Compensation Act is a remedial statute, if its language is ambiguous, the Court construes the Act "as liberally in favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes." Id. at 655 , 141 A.3d at 94 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Where the Workers' Compensation Act's language is unambiguous, however, the Court may not create an ambiguity to interpret the Act more favorably to injured employees. See id. at 655-56 , 141 A.3d at 94 . Workers' Compensation Act LE § 9-656, part of the Workers' Compensation Act, provides for apportionment of liability for permanent disability benefits as follows: *¹³² (a) Determination by Commission .-If it appears that a permanent disability of a covered employee following an accidental personal injury or occupational disease is due partly to the accidental personal injury or occupational disease and partly to a preexisting disease or infirmity, the Commission shall determine: (1) the proportion of the disability that is reasonably attributable to the accidental personal injury or occupational disease; and (2) the proportion of the disability that is reasonably attributable to the preexisting disease or infirmity. (b) Payment of compensation .-The covered employee: (1) is entitled to compensation for the portion of the disability of the covered employee that is reasonably attributable ¹⁶⁹ solely to the accidental personal injury or occupational disease; and (2) is not entitled to compensation for the portion of the disability that is reasonably attributable to the preexisting disease or infirmity.

LE § 9-655(1) and (2) state: "This Part VIII of this subtitle[, which includes LE § 9-656,] does not apply to: (1) a temporary partial disability; [or] (2) a temporary total disability[.]" (Paragraph break omitted). LE § 9-736(b) provides for continuing jurisdiction and authorizes the Commission to modify its findings as follows: (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. *¹³³ Causation In Reeves Motor Co. v. Reeves , 204 Md. 576 , 582-83, 105 A.2d 236 , 239-40 (1954), a case involving an initial determination of permanent partial disability, this Court reversed a jury's award of permanent partial disability benefits for an accidental personal injury, concluding that a subsequent surgery that resulted in the employee's further injury broke the causal connection between the accidental personal injury and the permanent partial disability.

This Court observed that an accidental personal injury is the proximate cause of an employee's disability where the accidental personal injury could have caused the employee's disability and "no other efficient cause has intervened[.]" Id. at 581 , 105 A.2d at 239 . This Court concluded that an accidental personal injury is not the proximate cause of an employee's disability where the employee's disability "ensues from some hazard to which [the employee] would have been equally exposed apart from his [or her] employment." Id. at 582 , 105 A.2d at 239 (citation omitted). In Reeves , id. at 579 , 105 A.2d at 238 , an employee incurred an accidental personal injury when he dislocated his shoulder while working in a garage, and was compensated for a week that he missed from work. Afterward, the employee dislocated his shoulder several more times, both in and outside the course of employment, with the most recent shoulder dislocation occurring at the workplace.

See id. at 579-80 , 105 A.2d at 238 . The employee's physician treated him for his most recent work-related shoulder dislocation. See id. at 580 , 105 A.2d at 238 . After the treatment, there was no limitation of movement in the employee's shoulder, which was in approximately the same condition that it had been before his most recent work-related shoulder dislocation.

See id. at 580 , 105 A.2d at 238 . Subsequently, the employee underwent surgery on his shoulder, which became partially immobilized as a result. See id. at 580-81 , 105 A.2d at 239 . The employee filed a claim for workers' compensation as to his most recent work-related shoulder dislocation, seeking both temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits.

See id. at 582-83 , 105 A.2d at 239 -40 . The Commission denied the *¹³⁴ employee's claim. See id. at 578 , 105 A.2d at 237 . The employee appealed.

See id. at 578 , 105 A.2d at 237 . A jury found that the employee's most recent work-related shoulder dislocation had caused his temporary total disability and ¹⁷⁰ his permanent partial disability. See id. at 578 , 105 A.2d at 237 . This Court reversed, 7 concluding that, in light of the evidence concerning the intervening surgery, the trial court had erred in not withdrawing from the jury the issue of whether the employee's