Johns Hopkins University v. Board of Labor, Licensing & Regulations

JOHN F. McAULIFFE, Judge (Retired, Specially Assigned). This unemployment insurance case addresses whether § 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article of the Maryland Code, which disqualifies claimants from unemployment benefits for misconduct, applies to conduct that is a product of a mental deficiency. Appellant, Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”), appeals a decision by the Board of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (the “Board”) granting unemployment benefits to Anthony Costello, a former employee of JHU, without any disqualification for misconduct. Costello was fired from JHU after his bipolar disorder caused him to go to work with a hockey stick and behave in a violent and threatening manner.

The Circuit Court for Baltimore City affirmed the Board’s decision. On appeal, JHU raises a single issue: In order to establish “misconduct” under the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law § 8-1003, must the employer show that the claimant’s conduct precipitating his termi ⁶⁵⁶ nation was “voluntary” even though the law does not require a finding of intentionality? For the following reasons, we reverse. Costello began working for JHU on February 1, 1989, as a Senior Lab Technician II within the School of Medicine’s Department of Pathology.

On March 10, 1997, Costello arrived at work with a hockey stick. He struck various objects with the stick, including desks and file cabinets, and when Costello’s supervisor attempted to get him to leave the lab, Costello threatened to “get rid of’ him. JHU security personnel and the Baltimore City Police removed Costello from the lab and escorted him to the Emergency Room. He was involuntarily admitted to JHU’s Affective Disorders Unit until a certification was executed by an Administrative Law Judge nine days later permitting him to leave the hospital.

On April 30, 1997, JHU terminated Costello’s employment because of “this serious incident, as well as attendance and performance patterns about which [Costello was] counseled in the months prior to March 10.” On May 30, 1997, Costello applied for unemployment benefits. A claims examiner found his conduct constituted “gross misconduct,” as defined in § 8-1002 of the Labor and Employment Article and, therefore, disqualified him from benefits. Costello appealed the decision. After a hearing, the hearing examiner reversed the claims examiner’s decision by finding there was “competent evidence indicating] that [Costello’s bipolar disorder] caused the claimant’s actions on March 10, 1997.

The claimant’s actions cannot be characterized as intentional misconduct.” JHU appealed to the Board and the Board affirmed the decision. JHU then appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. That court remanded the case to the Board in light of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Department of Labor v. Hider, 349 Md. 71 , 706 A.2d 1073 (1998), which held that misconduct under § 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article does not require intentional misconduct. On remand, the Board found that Hider did not control in the instant case because “in Hider , the claimants[’] actions ... did constitute miscon ⁶⁵⁷ duct,” whereas in this case, Costello “did not have the ability to commit misconduct” because of his medical condition and granted Costello unemployment benefits.

JHU appealed the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, where the decision was affirmed. The circuit court agreed with the Board that: Hider raises a different issue when it discusses the issue of whether misconduct is intentional, and what the court is trying to do in Hider is to distinguish the proof necessary for misconduct from gross misconduct and aggravated misconduct. And that the Board in this case was addressing whether Mr. Costello, the employee, had the capacity at the time to know what he was doing and therefore be responsible for it. That is a different issue than raised in Hider .

This appeal followed. Judicial review of the Board’s decision regarding unemployment benefits is governed by § 8-512(d) of the Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article, which states: (d) Scope of review. — In a judicial proceeding under this section, findings of fact of the Board of Appeals are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law if: (1) findings of fact are supported by evidence that is competent, material, and substantial in view of the entire record; and (2) there is no fraud. Md.Code (1999), Lab. & Empl. § 8-512(d). Thus, absent an allegation of fraud, the factual findings by the Board, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.

Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 360 Md. 387, 394 , 758 A.2d 124 (2000); Allen v. Core Target City Youth Program, 275 Md. 69, 75 , 338 A.2d 237 (1975). The test for determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s factual findings is whether reasoning minds could reach the same conclusion from the facts relied upon by the Board. Hider, 349 Md. at 78 , 706 A.2d 1073 . ⁶⁵⁸ In Hider , two former nursing home employees applied for unemployment benefits after being terminated from employment for failing to respond to an emergency medical situation. Id. at 79 , 706 A.2d 1073 .

The Board found that the claimants’ poor judgment in failing to check on a patient who complained of heart pain amounted to misconduct and, as a result, disqualified them from benefits for ten weeks. Id. at 77 , 706 A.2d 1073 . On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision. Hider v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 115 Md.App. 258, 262-63 , 693 A.2d 17 (1997).

This Court held that the Board erred as a matter of law by concluding that the claimants’ conduct amounted to misconduct because their actions were unintentional. Id. at 281 , 693 A.2d 17 . The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the Board’s decision because “requiring] intentional misbehavior would blur, if not dissolve, the distinction between ... misconduct ... and gross misconduct----” Hider, 349 Md. at 84 , 706 A.2d 1073 . In this case, the events of March 10, 1997, are undisputed.

In addition, JHU does not contest the Board’s conclusion that Costello’s actions on March 10, 1997, were caused by his bipolar disorder. Rather, JHU argues that the Board and circuit court erred as a matter of law by misconstruing § 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article to require a “voluntary” act. Therefore, the issue before us is one of statutory construction. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that statutes should be construed to effectuate the Legislature’s intention.

Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 418 , 379 A.2d 1007 (1977); Allen, 275 Md. at 77 , 338 A.2d 237 (quoting Celanese Corp. of America v. Davis, 186 Md. 463 , 47 A.2d 379 (1946)). The intent of the Legislature must first be sought in the language of the statute itself. Allen, 275 Md. at 77 , 338 A.2d 237 . If the language is free of ambiguity and has a definite and sensible meaning, there is usually no need to look elsewhere to ascertain the Legislature’s intention.

Dowling, 281 Md. at 418 , 379 A.2d 1007 . Courts are not permitted to insert words to express an intention contrary to the plain ⁶⁵⁹ words of the statute and may not omit words or render them superfluous or meaningless. Id. at 419 , 379 A.2d 1007 . Maryland’s Unemployment Insurance Law is set forth in Title 8 of the Maryland Code, Labor and Employment Article.

It is intended to prevent