Garrett v. Board of Education

BISHOP, Judge. Appellant, Charles E. Garrett (“Garrett”), filed an emergency petition with the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) requesting the continuation of temporary total disability benefits (“TTD”) and the computation of his disability retirement offset. Garrett’s petition was denied. Garrett filed an appeal to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

Garrett and Appellee, the Board of Education of Prince George’s County (the “Board”), filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court ¹⁷² granted the Board’s motion. Garrett filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. Issue Garrett presents one issue which we restate as follows: Did the circuit court erroneously grant the Board’s motion for summary judgment after basing its calculation of a Section 9-610 offset on a retirement payout option which Garrett did not elect?

Facts The undisputed facts are supplied by the parties’ Agreed Statement of the Case filed pursuant to Rule 8-207(b). Garrett was injured in a work-related accident on August 28, 1986. The Board paid TTD at a rate of $273.00 per week ($1,183.00 per month) through April 1, 1991, and then terminated the benefits after Garrett applied for and received a Maryland State Disability Retirement from which he receives $846.32 per month. At the time of his disability retirement, Garrett was presented with a list of options regarding payment of his retirement benefits.

Garrett selected “Option II” which pays $846.32 per month and provides survivor’s benefits and the possibility of purchasing health insurance for the beneficiary. Had Garrett selected Option IV, a single life annuity with no survivor’s benefits and no possibility of purchasing health insurance for the beneficiary, he would have received $1,325.79 per month for life with no additional benefits. Garrett did not select Option IV because he desired Option II’s broader benefits. Under the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, Garrett could not change his election after receipt of the first payment.

On September 20, 1991, Garrett’s Emergency Petition was heard by the Commission. On that date, Garrett was still temporarily totally disabled. The Commission found that Garrett was not entitled to further payment of TTD ¹⁷³ because of the applicability of the offset provision of Md. Lab. & Empl.Code Ann. § 9-610(a) (1991). The circuit court agreed with the Commission’s finding.

It held that for purposes of the offset provision of § 9-610(a), the amount payable under Option IV was the “benefit” paid to Garrett each month, even though he actually received a lesser monthly payment under Option II. Thus, Garrett was not entitled to further payment of TTD because benefits under the disability retirement exceeded the amount of TTD. Discussion Section 9-610 of the Labor and Employment Article provides in pertinent part: Offset against other benefits. (a) Covered employee of governmental unit or quasi-public corporation. — (1) If a statute, ... 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 § 9-201(2) of this title ..., payment of the benefit by the employer satisfies, to the extent of the payment, the liability of the employer ... for payment of benefits under this title.

(2) If a benefit paid under paragraph (1) of this subsection is less than the benefits provided under this title, the employer ... shall provide an additional benefit that equals the difference between the benefit paid under paragraph (1) of this subsection and the benefits provided under this title. Md.Lab. and EmpLCode Ann. § 9-610 (1991) (emphasis added). Thus, if the monthly “benefit” paid Garrett exceeds his monthly TTD award, the Board’s liability under Garrett’s worker’s compensation judgment is satisfied. Before 1991, § 9-610 was located in Article 101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.

The relevant portion then read: ¹⁷⁴ Whenever by statute ..., whether as part of a pension system or otherwise, any benefit or benefits are furnished employees ..., the benefit or benefits when furnished by the employer shall satisfy and discharge pro tanto or in full as the case may be, the liability or obligation of the employer ... for any benefit under this article. If any benefits so furnished are less than those provided for in this article the employer ... shall furnish the additional benefit as will make up the difference between the benefit furnished and the similar benefit required in this article. Md.Ann.Code art. 101, § 33(d) (Supp.1990) (emphasis added). This section was revised and recodified in the new Labor and Employment Article.

Although new language is used in § 9-610, its language was derived without substantive change from former § 33(d). See Md.Lab. & Empl.Code Ann. § 9-610 (1990) (revisor’s note); Office & Professional Employees Int’l Union, Local 2 v. Mass Transit Admin., 295 Md. 88, 101 , 453 A.2d 1191 (1982) (“The notes or reports of a revisor or revision commission are entitled to considerable weight in ascertaining legislative intent.”). Both parties agree that case law interpreting § 33 shall govern. Further, “[a] change in the phraseology of a statute as part of a recodification will ordinarily not be deemed to modify the law unless the change is such that the intention of the Legislature to modify the law is unmistakable.” Id. at 100, 453 A.2d 1191 .

Thus, we shall consider the language of § 33 in determining the application of § 9-610 because changes were made only for the purposes of clarity and brevity. See Welch v. Humphrey, 200 Md. 410, 417 , 90 A.2d 686 (1952). Garrett argues that the amount of the offset against payment of TTD is the amount of money the claimant actually is receiving from the disability retirement pension — $842.67 per month in the case sub judice. Garrett contends the language of § 9-610(a) — such wording as “paid” and “to the extent of payment” — necessitates such a result. ¹⁷⁵ The Board argues that the benefit paid to Garrett is not only the amount of his monthly retirement pension check, but also the death benefit which he elected to provide to a beneficiary.

Although the actual payment will be made to a beneficiary upon Garrett’s death, the Board contends it is nevertheless furnishing this benefit to Garrett within the meaning of § 9-610(a). Put another way, the Board contends Garrett’s monthly benefit contains two components: (1) cash (the amount of the monthly check to Garrett), and (2) the value of the continued payments to Garrett’s beneficiary. The Board places the value of the monthly benefit to Garrett at $1,325.79, the amount he would have received under Option IV. “It has long been the policy of the General Assembly ... that an employee of the government shall not receive workmen’s compensation benefits in addition to other benefits furnished by the employer accruing by reason of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” Nooe v. Mayor of Baltimore, 28 Md.App. 348, 349 , 345 A.2d 134 (1975), cert. denied, 276 Md. 748 (1976). Since “workmen’s compensation is one unit in an overall system of wage-loss protection, rather than something resembling a recovery in tort ..., the conclusion follows that duplication of benefits from different parts of the system should not ordinarily be allowed.” Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 97.00 (1990).

Therefore, by enacting § 9-610, the General Assembly expressed its desire “to provide only a single recovery for a single injury for government employees covered by both a pension plan and workmen’s compensation.” Frank v. Baltimore County, 284 Md. 655, 659 , 399 A.2d 250