Hackley v. Mayor of Baltimore

ALPERT, Judge. We address here the consolidated appeals of four police officers (hereinafter occasionally referred to as “claimants”) whose applications for special disability retirement benefits pursuant to Article 22, Section 34(e) of the Baltimore City Code were denied. 1 The single issue presented by these cases may be succinctly stated: Is a police officer who is capable of performing light duty specially assigned to officers injured in the line of duty, “incapacitated for the further performance of the duties of his job classification?” I. Procedural Background and City of Baltimore v. Hackley, 300 Md. 777 (1984). Claimants, William Hackley, William Wedemeyer, James Possidente and Edward McCarthy were employed as police officers with the Baltimore City Police Department. Each sustained an injury in the line of duty, which injury was not caused by the wilfull negligence of the officer.

Claimants were unable to return to their duties as patrolmen because of their injuries. All four, however, were certified by police physicians for “light duty” within the department and, while performing those duties, carried their weapons and retained full powers of arrest. Additionally, no claimant received a reduction in pay or grade and all were carried on police rosters as “patrolmen” or “foot patrol.” Claimants Hackley and Wedemeyer performed clerical work, claimant ¹¹⁴ Possidente dispatched police cruisers from the department’s communications center, and claimant McCarthy worked as a gunsmith in the police department’s armory. Claimants retired 2 and in 1981, filed applications for special disability benefits with the Board of Trustees of the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System (hereinafter, “the Board”).

Each asserted that, though able to perform light duty, his injury prevented him from performing the more rigorous duties associated with police work. Therefore, each claimant argued that he was incapacitated from performing “the duties of his job classification” within the meaning of the special disability benefit provisions. Claimants’ applications were heard by special examiners in the spring of 1981. In each case, an examiner found that the claimant was capable of performing sedentary duties required of police officers.

Therefore, the examiners held in each case that the claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was incapacitated for the performance of the duties of his job classification. Accordingly, claimants’ applications for special benefits were denied. Each claimant was awarded instead “ordinary benefits” pursuant to § 34(c) on the assumption that such benefits are appropriate where an officer is partially, rather than totally, incapacitated. The officers appealed these determinations to what is now the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

In each case, that court reversed the decision of the claims examiner. The cases were consolidated for appeal, and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari. Without reversal or affirmance, the Court of Appeals remanded the cases to the hearing examiner pursuant to Rule 871 a. City of Baltimore v. Hackley, 300 Md. 277 , 477 A.2d 1174 (1984).

The court held that the examiners had applied an incorrect standard for the term “incapacitated.” Under the correct standard, benefits may be awarded ¹¹⁵ pursuant to either § 34(c) or (e) only upon a showing of total incapacitation. Id. at 289, 477 A.2d 1174 . The court then adopted the majority rule governing incapacitation for cases in which the claimant has been assigned to light duty: a police officer who is capable of performing sedentary, non-rigorous tasks is not incapacitated for the further performance of the duties of his job classification. Id. at 288 , 477 A.2d 1174 .

The court noted, however, that this rule applies only to those cases in which the police department that employed the claimant normally assigns its members to full-time, regular, light duty positions. Id. Pursuant to Rule 871 a, the court expressed the purpose for its remand: The claims examiners then shall not only apply the correct legal standard for the term “incapacitated” [i.e., total incapacitation] but shall also receive additional evidence as necessary for resolving the questions we raised above. Id. at 290-291 , 477 A.2d 1174 .

Those questions were: [I]s it in fact a practice of the Baltimore City Police Department to assign personnel to regular, permanent, full-time, light duty jobs which are within the job classification of police officer? Have the police officers assigned to such positions in the past been those with physical limitations, those who are completely physically fit, or both? Is each claimant in the cases before us assigned to such a position? Finally, is each claimant able to perform the duties of the position to which he has been assigned?

Id. Although the court did not indicate how the resolution of these questions fit into the broader task of determining whether claimants were totally incapacitated from further performing their duties, the relationship between the two is apparent. If the light duties to which claimants were assigned have, through custom or practice, become “duties within the job classification of police officer,” claimants are incapacitated with the meaning of § 34(e) only if they are unable to perform the light duties to which they were assigned. Thus, by resolving the four questions above, the ¹¹⁶ examiners would also be applying the majority rule adopted by the court.

On remand, the hearing examiners determined that, in each case, the claimant had again failed to establish that he was incapacitated for the further performance of the duties of his job classification. Accordingly, all four claimants were denied special disability benefits. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City affirmed the decisions of the Board. This appeal followed.

The scope of our review in resolving these appeals is narrowly defined. Our duty is to determine whether the decisions of the Board were arbitrary or capricious. Adams v. Bd. of Trustees, 215 Md. 188, 193-94 , 137 A.2d 151 (1957) . An arbitrary or capricious administrative determination cannot stand.

If the conclusion reached in each of these cases, i.e., that the claimant is not incapacitated within the meaning of § 34(e), is supported by sufficient evidence, see Bd. of Trustees v. Rollins, 269 Md. 722 , 309 A.2d 758 (1973) and is based upon a proper construction of the law, see Frank v. Baltimore County, 284 Md. 655 , 399 A.2d 250 (1979), the conclusion is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The law which governs this case are those points finally decided by the Court of Appeals in the first appeal. Rule 871 a. See generally Fidelity-Baltimore Nat’l v. John Hancock Mut.

Life Ins. Co., 217 Md. 367, 372 , 142 A.2d 796 (1958) (once the Court of Appeals has ruled on a question, that ruling is binding on the litigants and courts in subsequent appeals of that case). We shall review the Board’s determinations in these cases in the manner in which they were remanded to it.

II

Determinations of Hearing Examiners A. Practice of the Baltimore City Police Department in Assigning Light Duties Within the Classification of Police Officer Testimony offered at all four hearings established that it is the practice of the Baltimore City Police Department to ¹¹⁷ assign personnel to regular, permanent, full-time light duty jobs. Major Joseph A. Bolesta, commanding officer of the Northwestern District, testified that permanent limited duty jobs were created with the full knowledge of his supervisors. Detective Lieutenant John Fuller indicated that the same practice exists at the Northeastern District also with the knowledge of supervisors. At Officer Possidente’s hearing, (retired) Major Theodore I. Weintraub testified: Almost universally, communication centers within a police department or fire department, for that matter, is a place to send your sick and lame____ When someone cannot function on the street and you still want to take “care of the man,” and you give him a job, invariably, you send him to a communications center.

Not just in Baltimore City, Baltimore County and throughout the United States. The light duties assigned to claimants were also “within the job classification of police officers.” The Civil Service Commission job description was introduced at claimants’ original hearings “to demonstrate the nature and extent of the job classification of a police officer.” Hackley, 300 Md. at 279-280 n. 1, 477 A.2d 1174 . It states in pertinent part: GENERAL DEFINITION This is law enforcement work at the full performance level. Work involves maintaining order and protecting life and property in keeping with the responsibilities, policies and procedures of the Baltimore City Police Department.

Work requires strenuous physical activity, working in dangerous situations and in all weather conditions. Shift work on a rotating basis is normally required. TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF WORK (illustrative only) Patrols an assigned post to prevent and discover the commission of crime and to enforce traffic regulations; responds to calls and complaints; takes necessary action at the scene of a crime or disturbance including maintain ¹¹⁸ ing order, gathering evidence, protecting crime scenes; locates witnesses, and makes arrests; conducts investigations; obtains information through personal interviews; maintains service equipment; testifies in court; maintains good personal appearance; delivers summonses and subpoenas; completes a variety of narrative and fill-in forms; attends roll call and scheduled in-service training sessions; may act as sergeant in latter’s absence; performs related work as required. The examples of work contained in this job description are all “duties of [claimants’] job classification.” We are careful to note, however, that these “examples” are not exhaustive and, as the Court of Appeals intimated, they may be supplemented by practice or custom.

Officers Hackley and Wedemeyer were assigned essentially identical light duties following their line-of-duty injuries. These duties may be described generally as clerical and included completing crime reports, answering telephone