Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd.

McDONALD, J., concurring, in which BARBERA, C.J., and GREENE, J., join. I reluctantly concur in the judgment. Not all claimants have counsel. Perhaps in light of that, the Legislature has directed the Commission to “adopt reasonable and proper regulations to govern the procedures of the Commission, which shall be as simple and brief as reasonably possible.” Maryland Code, Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), § 9-701(a) (emphasis added).

That is easier said than done, as this case illustrates. The Commission has adopted an electronic filing system. In regulation it portrays that system as one of three alternative ways of filing forms and documents with the Commission. COMAR 14.09.01.04. 1 Only a very careful reading of the ³⁰⁹ Commission’s other regulations and website reveals that (1) a claimant in fact has no choice but must use the electronic filing system to submit a claim form and (2) that submission of a claim form on that system is not the filing of a claim.

In other words, a claimant must submit the claim both electronically and in hard copy to “file” it before the expiration of the two-year period of limitations set forth in LE § 9 — 709(b)(3). In this case, Mr. Hranicka submitted the electronic copy in a timely manner, but the hard copy was received at the Commission one day late. 2 It is also confusing that, while a regulation defines the date for a claim to be the “date stamp affixed on the claim form,” 3 the Commission actually “affixes” two different dates to the form — one placed in a special box on the bottom of the form as part of the electronic filing process, and a second date, apparently placed on the hard copy when it is physically received at the Commission. The electronically-affixed date apparently is not the “filing date,” although it is the date that the Commission’s website insists must appear on the filed copy. 4 ³¹⁰ This leads me to second the sentiment expressed by Judge Kehoe in his concurring opinion in the unreported decision of Court of Special Appeals in this case: In today’s world, and identifying just a few of the myriad of transactions that routinely take place over the Internet, millions of individuals purchase health and motor vehicle insurance, make banking transactions, buy goods and services, apply to colleges, and file tax returns by doing essentially what Mr. Hranicka did in this case — filling out a form on an Internet webpage and then clicking a “submit” or “send” icon. I am not at all surprised that Mr. Hranicka failed to grasp that submitting a claim form to the Commission is not the same thing as filing a claim with the Commission.

I understand that the Commission, for reasons of its own, prefers claim forms to be submitted both electronically and on paper. I concede that a thorough reading of the webpage will eventually lead to the realization — counterintuitive to many individuals in this era of Internet commerce — that “submitting a claim form” is different from “filing a claim” and that, until a signed paper copy of the claim form is received by the Commission, no claim is filed. But I am at a loss to understand why the Commission has chosen to bury this critical information in the fine print on its website. Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd,., et al. v. Hranicka, No. 0327 (Sept. Term, 2013) (concurring Opinion by Kehoe, J.), at 1-2.

It appears that, subsequent to the Court of Special Appeals decision and perhaps in light of it, the Commission revised its