Lombardi v. Montgomery County

CATHELL, Judge. Anthony Lombardi, appellant, was employed as a firefighter and paramedic by Montgomery County Department of Fire ⁶⁹⁹ and Rescue Services, appellee. In 1988, he was diagnosed with hypertension. Roughly three and one-half years later, in late 1991, an examining physician concluded that appellant’s condition stemmed from his employment.

He thereafter filed a claim seeking compensation under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). See Maryland Code (1991 Repl.Vol., 1995 Supp.), §§ 9-101 to 9-1201 of the Labor and Employment Article (LE). In an Order dated April 18, 1994, the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) disallowed his claim, finding that it was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations in respect to the filing of claims with the Commission and that appellant had not sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Act. On appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomeiy County, faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.

In this appeal from that judgment, appellant presents three questions, which we rephrase as follows: 1. Did the circuit court err when it ruled that the statute of limitations began to run when the claimant knew or should have known that his occupational disease was caused by his employment? 2. Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment because the question of when appellant knew or should have known that his illness was caused by his employment was a question of material fact still in dispute? 3. Did the circuit court err in concluding that the statute of limitations began to run in 1988 because appellant was not actually incapacitated or disabled at that time?

Because we hold that the circuit court erred in respect to appellant’s first two questions, we shall reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee and remand this case to the circuit court. Statement of the Facts Appellant was employed as a firefighter and paramedic by appellee for thirteen years. As a result of an unrelated back ⁷⁰⁰ injury, he retired from service in April of 1988 on a disability pension. Upon his retirement, appellant was given an exit physical examination, during which no finding of an elevated or heightened blood pressure was made.

Later that same year, appellant was first diagnosed with hypertension in the course of a routine visit to his family physician. According to appellant, it was not until 1991, following a discussion with his attorney, that he realized that there could be a connection between his hypertension and his former occupation. This belief was substantiated when a Dr. Richard Schwartz thereafter reached the opinion that appellant’s hypertension did, in fact, result from his work as a firefighter. Appellant filed a claim with the Commission on September 7, 1991, more than three years after the initial diagnosis, but at approximately the same time as the rendering of Dr. Schwartz’s opinion, stating that he had become disabled due to hypertension, an occupational disease, as a result of his employment as a firefighter. 1 At the subsequent hearing, held on March 21, 1994, appellant testified that it was in 1991, well after he had retired from appellee’s employ, that he first realized that his hypertension was related to his former employment.

By Order dated April 18, 1994, the Commission disallowed appellant’s claim upon finding (1) that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for occupational diseases and (2) that appellant had not sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Act. From this determination, appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. ⁷⁰¹ Before the circuit court, appellant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in which he sought a determination that his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Appellee, in response, filed a memorandum in opposition thereto and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing was held on the cross motions, during which the court remarked on the similarity between this case and a case previously heard by the court. 2 The court, consistent with its ruling in that prior case, held that the statute of limitations began to run when appellant had either knowledge or reason to believe that his hypertension was job-related.

The court then found that the limitations period began to run when appellant was first diagnosed with hypertension, and, because he had not filed his claim within two years from that time, his claim was barred. See LE § 9-711(a). Summary judgment was, accordingly, entered by the circuit court in favor of appellee. Because of the nature of its ruling, the trial court did not address the second prong of the Commission’s findings.

The Knowledge Requirement of LE § 9-711(a)(2) Appellant avers that the circuit court erred when it ruled that the two-year statute of limitations began to run when he was first diagnosed with hypertension—i.e., when he should have known that his hypertension was causally related to his former employment as a firefighter. Instead, appellant insists, the statute of limitations began to run when he first had ⁷⁰² actual knowledge that his disability was linked to his occupation. Section 9-711(a) of the Act, the limitations section at issue, in relevant part, reads: (a) Filing claim:—If a covered employee suffers a dis- • ablement or death as a result of an occupational disease, the covered employee ... shall file a claim with the Commission within 2 years ... after the date: (1) of disablement or death; or (2) when the covered employee ... first had actual knowledge that the disablement was caused by the employment. [Emphasis added.] In undertaking an analysis of this section, we must first set forth the principles that guide our interpretation of a statute. Our end, in this respect, is to determine the intent of the Legislature when it adopted the section now in dispute.

State v. Kennedy, 320 Md. 749, 755 , 580 A.2d 193 (1990); Tucker v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 308 Md. 69, 73 , 517 A.2d 730 (1986). We “begin[ ] with the words of the statute” itself. Harris v. State, 331 Md. 137, 145 , 626 A.2d 946 (1993); Holman v. Kelly Catering, Inc., 334 Md. 480, 485 , 639 A.2d 701 (1994); see also State v. Bricker, 321 Md. 86, 92 , 581 A.2d 9 (1990) (“When interpreting a statute, the starting point is the wording of the relevant provisions.”).

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, “we assume that the words of the statute are intended to have their natural, ordinary and generally understood meaning.” Brodsky v. Brodsky, 319 Md. 92, 98 , 570 A.2d 1235 (1990); Barr v. Barberry Bros., Inc., 99 Md.App. 33, 37 , 635 A.2d 64 (1994). Moreover, “where statutory provisions are clear and unambiguous, no construction or clarification is needed or permitted, it being the rule that a plainly worded statute must be construed without forced or subtle interpretations designed to extend or limit the scope of its operation.” Tucker, 308 Md. at 73 , 517 A.2d 730 ; Barr, 99 Md.App. at 37-38 , 635 A.2d 64 ; see also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. State, 87 Md.App. 287, 292-93 , 589 A.2d 569 (1991). ⁷⁰³ However, “the plain meaning rule of construction is not absolute; rather, the statute must be construed reasonably with reference to the purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body.” Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380, 387 , 614 A.2d 590 (1992); Barr, 99 Md.App. at 37 , 635 A.2d 64 . In this respect, “pertinent parts of the legislative language [should be read] together, giving effect to all of those parts if we can, and rendering no part of the law surplusage.” Sinai Hosp., Inc. v. Department of Employment & Training, 309 Md. 28, 40 , 522 A.2d 382 (1987); Holman, 334 Md. at 485 , 639 A.2d 701 . Furthermore, in workers’ compensation cases, “[a]ny uncertainty in the law should be resolved in favor of the claimant.” Victor v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg.

Co., 318 Md. 624, 629 , 569 A.2d 697 (1990). Nonetheless, while it is true that the “Act is to be construed liberally in favor of injured employees, ‘this does not mean that the Act should be construed to provide for compensation beyond that authorized.’ ” Subsequent Injury Fund v. Ehrman, 89 Md.App. 741, 751 , 599 A.2d 875 (1992) (quoting Subsequent Injury Fund v. Thomas, 275 Md. 628, 635 , 342 A.2d 671 (1975)); Barr, 99 Md.App. at 39 , 635 A.2d 64 . With these precepts in mind, we turn our attention to the statutory language at issue. Although we perceive the language of LE § 9-711(a)(2) to be clear and unambiguous on its face, a review of prior codifications of this section will be instructive, because “[generally, a substantive amendment to an existing statute indicates an intent to change the meaning of that statute.” In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, 307 Md. 674, 689 , 516 A.2d 976 (1986); Harris, 331 Md. at 146 , 626 A.2d 946 ; C & R Contractors v. Wagner, 93 Md.App. 801, 809 , 614 A.2d 1035 (1992), cert. denied, 329 Md. 480 , 620 A.2d 350 (1993).

Starting in 1947, Article 101, § 26 3 of the Maryland Code read, in pertinent part: ⁷⁰⁴ If no claim for disability or death from an occupational disease be filed with the State Industrial Accident Commission [4] within one 0) year from the date of disablement or death, as the case may be, the right to compensation for such disease shall be forever barred[.] [1939 Acts, ch. 645, § 1.] The Court of Appeals addressed this statutory language in Consolidation Coal Co. v. Porter, 192 Md. 494 , 64 A.2d 715 (1949). There, Porter, the employee, first manifested his illness in 1944. Despite his acknowledged diligence in seeking treatment, it was not until three years later, in 1947, that he learned that he was suffering from an occupational disease resulting from his employment. Porter filed a claim for compensation immediately after learning of the connection, and it was challenged on the ground that it was not filed within the appropriate limitations period.

Before the Court of Appeals, the issue was “whether the words of the statute, Article 101, Section 26, supra, mean that limitations start to run in occupational disease eases after the first distinct manifestation of the occupational disease to the employee or to some one in his behalf.” Id. at 500-01, 64 A.2d 715 . Finding no express knowledge requirement in the text of the statute, the Court concluded that the words of the statute now in question mean ... that limitations as to notice to the employer, and as to the time of filing of the claim, Article 101, Section 26, supra, started to run in this occupational disease case from the time the employee or some one in his behalf knew or had reason to believe that he was suffering from an occupational disease ⁷⁰⁵ and that there was a causal connection between his disability and occupation.... Id. at 506, 64 A.2d 715 (emphasis added). The Court then held that the limitations period began to run in 1947, thereby allowing the employee’s claim, because, prior to that time, the employee “did not suspect or believe that he was suffering from [an] ... occupational disease.” Id.

In Mutual Chem. Co. of Am. v. Pinckney, 205 Md. 107 , 106 A.2d 488 (1954), the Court was again faced with a limitations question based upon the same statutory language. There, it was uncontested that Pinckney, the employee, knew, at the time of his discharge in 1948, that his nose was troubling him and that this problem stemmed directly from the chemicals to which he had been exposed in his workplace. The employee did not become cognizant, however, of the exact nature of his malady, a perforated septum, until 1951.

It was this realization that prompted him to file a claim for compensation against his former employer. Applying the standard set out in Porter , the Court of Appeals ruled that the employee “knew or should have known that his disability, whether permanent or temporary, was compensable” at the time he was discharged, some three years prior to the time he filed the claim. Id. at 116, 106 A.2d 488 . The Court, reasoning that Pinckney knew both that he was having health problems and of its connection to his work three years prior to filing his claim, held that the employee’s claim was barred.

Accord Dunstan v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 187 Md. 571 , 51 A.2d 288 (1947). In 1967, Article 101, § 26 was amended. For the first time, the Legislature included an explicit knowledge requirement in that portion of the section here at issue. In relevant part, it read: If no claim for disability or death from an occupational disease be filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission within two (2) years from the date of disablement or the date when the claimant first has actual knowledge such disablement was caused by his employment, or death, as the case may be, the right to compensation for such disease ⁷⁰⁶ shall be forever barred[.] [1967 Acts, ch. 153, § 1.] [Emphasis added.] Although not included in the passage quoted, the amendment did not place into separate sections the limitations periods for filing a claim -with the employer and for filing a claim with the Commission.

This Court was called upon to decipher the implications of this change in the statutory language in Burdock v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 22 Md.App. 631 , 325 A.2d 171 , cert. denied, 272 Md. 738 (1974). In that case, Burdock, the employee, retired from his job as a miner in 1968, after having been so employed for forty-three years. It was not until 1972, upon being examined by a physician, however, that he realized that he was suffering from a compensable occupational disease.

The Medical Board 5 accepted his testimony on this point and found that Burdock “first had knowledge of the disease” as of the date of that examination, in mid-1972. Id. at 640, 325 A.2d 171 . The Board also found that Burdock “first became disabled in 1970.” Id. Be that as it may, the Commission, basing its decision upon an earlier medical report, found Burdock’s claim to be barred for failure to file a timely claim with the Commission.

On appeal, the circuit court, relying on Porter and Pinckney , agreed; it found that the claim was barred and entered judgment in favor of the employer. On further appeal to this Court, noting that the pertinent statutory- language had changed in the interim, we found the trial court’s reliance on Porter and Pinckney to be misplaced. We stated: The version of § 26 which is to be applied in the instant case, however, is different from the 1947 text. The claim under the provisions of the section here applicable, had to be filed “within 2 years from the date of disablement or the date when the claimant first had actual knowledge that his disablement was caused by his employment.... ” The stat ⁷⁰⁷ utory requirement of “actual knowledge” by the claimant negates the Porter holding that if someone on his behalf had knowledge, the limitations period would start to run.

Id. at 643, 325 A.2d 171 (some emphasis added, some emphasis omitted, footnote omitted). Despite the trial court’s mistaken interpretation of the statutory standard, we affirmed its decision after conducting our own review of the record and determining that “there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s findings that [Burdock’s] claim was barred by limitations.” Id. at 644 , 325 A.2d 171 . Specifically, “[w]ith respect to the two-year limitation under § 26, there was evidence that [Burdock] had ‘actual knowledge’ of his disablement at the time of his hospitalization in 1964 rather than in May, 1972, as found by the Board.” Id. at 646, 325 A.2d 171 . 6 Turning back—or