Greer v. Montgomery Cnty.

Justin Greer v. Montgomery County, Maryland., No. 3381, Sept. Term 2018. Opinion filed on May 28, 2020, by Berger, J. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – COMPENSABLE HERNIA – HERNIA AS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE The Workers Compensation Act specifically provides for compensation for hernias under specific circumstances in Md. Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.), § 9-504 of the Labor and Employment Article. An “occupational disease” is “a disease contracted by a covered employee: (1) as the result of and in the course of employment; and (2) that causes the covered employee to become temporarily or permanently, partially or totally incapacitated.” LE § 9-101(g).

Hernias are compensable only pursuant to LE § 9-504 and are not compensable as occupational diseases. Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 443477-V REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 3381 September Term, 2018 ______________________________________ JUSTIN GREER v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND ______________________________________ Berger, Gould, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Berger, J. ______________________________________ Filed: May 28, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Suzanne Johnson 2020-07-21 14:55-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk This case arises from a workers’ compensation claim filed by Justin Greer, appellant. On December 17, 2018, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County issued an order affirming the order issued by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the “Commission”), which concluded that Mr. Greer’s inguinal hernia was not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”).

Mr. Greer appealed from the circuit court’s order and presents the following question for this Court’s review, which we have rephrased as follows: Whether the Commission and the circuit court erred in determining that Mr. Greer’s inguinal hernia was not compensable as an occupational disease under the Act. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Mr. Greer filed a claim with the Commission on February 24, 2017 alleging that he had suffered an inguinal hernia caused by repetitive lifting during his ten years of employment as a Montgomery County firefighter. “A hernia occurs when there is a protrusion of tissue through an abnormal opening of the body. Although they most commonly occur in the groin, they may occur in other areas of the body as well.” Clifford B. Sobin, 1 Maryland Workers’ Compensation § 5.3, at 141 (2018) (footnote omitted).1 1 “Inguinal hernia” is the medical term for a hernia that occurs in the groin area.

Inguinal Hernia, Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinc.org/health/diseases/16266- inguinal-hernia (last visited May 25, 2020) (“A hernia is a common condition that occurs when apart of an internal organ or tissue bulges through a muscle. An inguinal hernia occurs when the intestines or fat from the abdomen bulge through the lower abdominal wall into the inguinal, or groin, area.”). Mr. Greer had been diagnosed with a small hernia at a medical examination on July 27, 2015. Mr. Greer had surgery to repair the hernia on December 19, 2016.

The Commission held a hearing on Mr. Greer’s claim on January 29, 2018. Mr. Greer argued, through counsel, that his inguinal hernia was a compensable occupational disease. Montgomery County, Mr. Greer’s employer, asserted that hernias are not compensable as occupational diseases, and instead, are compensable only pursuant to the portion of the Act specifically addressing hernias set forth in Md. Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.), § 9-504 of the Labor and Employment Article (“LE”).

The Commission agreed with Montgomery County and disallowed Mr. Greer’s workers’ compensation claim. The Commission explained: Hearing was held in the above claim at Beltsville, Maryland on January 29, 2018 on the following issue: Did the employee sustain an occupational disease (hernia) arising out of and in the course of employment? The Commission finds on the issue presented that the claimant did not sustain an occupational disease (her[ni]a) arising out and in the course of employment as alleged to have occurred on December 19, 2016; pursuant to Maryland Law, a hernia can only be compensable as an accidental injury or strain pursuant to 9-504. Hernia as an occupational disease is not recognized under the current statute and the Commission will disallow the claim filed herein.

Mr. Greer sought judicial review de novo of the Commission’s determination in the circuit court. After a bench trial on December 12, 2018, the circuit court affirmed the Commission. Mr. Greer subsequently noted a timely appeal to this Court. 2 DISCUSSION The narrow issue before us on appeal is whether a hernia is compensable as an occupational disease under the Act. Although this case was before the circuit court on a petition for judicial review de novo, the parties agreed before the circuit court that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that the case hinges upon a single legal issue.

The parties further agree in this appeal that the issue before us is a purely legal one. The following standard of review applies to our determination in this case: Generally, in an appeal from judicial review of an agency action, we review the agency’s decision directly, not the decision of the circuit court . . . . We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers; however, we may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law. The Commission’s decision “is presumed to be prima facie correct[.]” LE § 9-745(b)(1).

That presumption, however, does not extend to questions of law, which we review independently. We do, though, afford the Commission a degree of deference, as appropriate, in its formal interpretations of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Long v. Injured Workers’ Ins. Fund, 448 Md. 253, 264 (2016). “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, 253-54 (2012).

However, “[a]lthough remedial statutes are, indeed, to be given a liberal construction, the predominant goal of the Court is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, and the ascertainment of that intent is done, in the first instance, by considering the language used by the Legislature and giving that language a plain and 3 common sense meaning.” 1081 Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 383 Md. 489, 502 (2004). We have explained: Where the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a definite and simple meaning, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent. If the words of the statute are susceptible to more than one meaning, it is necessary to consider their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives and [the] purpose of the enactment. Therefore, we construe the statute as a whole and interpret each of its provisions in the context of the entire statutory scheme.

Where the statute in question contains no ambiguity, the intent of the legislature is clear and the doctrine of liberal construction does not apply. McLaughlin, supra, 206 Md. App. at 252-53 (quotation and citations omitted). With these principles in mind, we turn to the legal issue at the center of this appeal. We must determine whether Mr. Greer sustained an occupational disease that is compensable under the Act.

Section 9-504 of the Labor and Employment Article specifically addresses compensable hernias as follows: Except as otherwise provided, an employer shall provide compensation in accordance with this title to a covered employee for a hernia caused by an accidental personal injury or by a strain arising out of and in the course of employment if: (1) the covered employee provides definite proof that satisfies the Commission that: (i) the hernia did not exist before the accidental personal injury or strain occurred; or (ii) as a result of the accidental personal injury or strain, a preexisting hernia has become so aggravated, incarcerated, or strangulated that an immediate operation is needed; and 4 (2) notwithstanding any other