Thomas v. State Retirement & Pension System

MURPHY, J. In the case at bar, James H. Thomas (the Petitioner), a retired Maryland State Police (MSP) officer, argues that he is entitled to receive “special disability benefits.” This argument was rejected by the Board of Trustees of the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland (the Board), Respondent. After that administrative decision was affirmed upon judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and by the Court of Special Appeals in Thomas v. State Ret. & Pension Sys. Of Md., 184 Md.App. 240 , 964 A.2d 733 (2009), the ⁴⁷ Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in which he presented us with the following question: Should this Court clarify whether a police department can deny an employee a special disability retirement when the employee’s disability did not arise from the employee’s misconduct, but rather the actions taken by the department following the misconduct? We granted the petition. 409 Md. 44 , 972 A.2d 859 (2009).

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that because his incapacity arises out of his “willful negligence,” the Petitioner is not entitled to special disability benefits provided by Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. (“SPP”), § 29-111(b)(1) (2004). We shall therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. Background The Court of Special Appeals opinion includes the following factual summary: Thomas began working as a State trooper for the Maryland State Police in 1971.

After he suffered a series of panic attacks while on the road from 1978 to 1980, he was transferred to the MSP’s Automotive Safety Enforcement Division (“ASED”), after which the panic attacks ceased. Within the ASED, Thomas’s job was to audit Maryland’s authorized vehicle inspection stations. In January 2000, the MSP issued Special Order 23-001, which established new, uniform ASED procedures for the auditing of vehicle inspection stations. It is undisputed that Thomas was aware of the new procedures and failed to comply with them.

After his superiors discovered that Thomas was not conducting thorough audits and that he was submitting false reports regarding his audits, the MSP initiated disciplinary proceedings against him by serving Thomas with an official Notification of Complaint on March 13, 2001. The receipt of the Notification caused Thomas to experience feelings of depression, anxiety, anger, and agitation, ⁴⁸ interfering with his job performance. Accordingly, the MSP referred Thomas to Caren DeBernardo, Psy.D., H.S.P.P., a licensed psychologist, for treatment. Thomas had his first therapy visit with Dr. DeBernardo on September 6, 2001.

Dr. DeBernardo later testified that, at this first meeting, Thomas was “feeling depressed. He was upset about the situation at work and that he had been reprimanded and was feeling anxious and agitated at the time.” Dr. DeBernardo noted that Thomas “basically was productive and working well up until” the time he came in for treatment. In October 2001, Thomas and his counsel purportedly negotiated a settlement agreement with the MSP, according to which Thomas would receive a thirty-day suspension without pay but remain in ASED. The parties dispute how firmly MSP committed to this settlement agreement.

But the MSP informed Thomas in November 2001 that there would be no settlement, and that the charges against him would be adjudicated. Thomas contends that when the MSP reneged on the settlement agreement, that traumatic incident exacerbated his pre-existing depression, insomnia, anger, and obsession over the disciplinary proceedings against him. As a result of Thomas’s condition progressing to a more serious depressive disorder, Thomas stopped working and went on sick leave at the end of November 2001, and he never returned to active duty. In January 2002, Bruce Leopold, M.D., a psychiatrist, diagnosed Thomas with a Major Depressive Illness.

On March 1, 2002, the MSP Administrative Hearing Board found Thomas guilty of neglect of duty, submitting inaccurate reports, and submitting false reports. The Hearing Board recommended a combined sanction of sixty days of suspension without pay, a one-year demotion from Trooper First Class to Trooper, and transfer out of ASED. Following the adjudication, Thomas’s condition further deteriorated, and, in October 2002, Daniel C. Gutkir, Ph.D., diagnosed Thomas with Major Depressive Disorder. ⁴⁹ The Superintendent of the MSP adopted the Hearing Board’s findings and sanctions. Thomas petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

In January 2003, the circuit court remanded the case for additional fact-finding in relation to the sanctions. Pursuant to additional findings by the Board, the MSP again imposed the same sanctions. On April 15, 2003, Thomas applied to the SRPS for special disability retirement benefits, as opposed to the less generous ordinary disability retirement benefits. In order for a retired member of the SRPS to be eligible for ordinary disability benefits, the Medical Board must certify that he “is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of the normal duties of the member’s position.” SPP § 29—105(a) (2)(i).

To qualify for special disability benefits, an MSP retiree must be “totally and permanently incapacitated for duty arising out of or in the course of the actual performance of duty without willful negligence by the member.” SPP § 29—111(b)(1). On June 26, 2003, the SRPS Medical Board recommended approving ordinary disability benefits but denying special disability benefits, on the ground that Thomas’s disability did not arise out of or in the course of the actual performance of duty. In response to Thomas’s request for reconsideration, the Medical Board affirmed its previous recommendation, which the SRPS accepted on July 22, 2003. On August 4, 2003, Thomas again requested reconsideration.

Sometime in 2003, Dr. DeBernardo’s diagnosis changed to Major Depressive Disorder, due to Thomas’s worsening symptoms. In a letter dated October 23, 2003, to Thomas’s attorney, Dr. DeBernardo summarized the progression of Thomas’s symptoms, and stated: “[Thomas] reported that these symptoms began immediately following charges brought against him by his employer—the Maryland State Police.” Dr. DeBernardo’s letter of October 23, 2003, continued: Mr. Thomas was initially diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed and Anxious Mood. (309.28). ⁵⁰ However, since symptoms worsened over time and continued for over two years, his diagnosis was changed to Major Depressive Disorder (296.23). Hi Hi Hi Prior to the allegations of misconduct, there was no reason to believe that Mr. Thomas would not continue to be an effective employee.

In addition, his depression began immediately following the allegations and worsened with the increased stress associated with the disciplinary actions, hearing, appeal, and pending retirement. Thomas retired on November 1, 2003. The next year, on August 5, 2004, the Medical Board reaffirmed its recommendation that Thomas receive ordinary disability benefits, which recommendation the SRPS adopted on August 17, 2004. On September 8, 2004, Thomas appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”).

Both Thomas and the SRPS filed motions for summary judgment. On November 2, 2005, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Gus Avery, issued a proposed decision, ruling that Thomas’s medical condition did arise out of the performance of duty— namely, participation in the disciplinary procedure against him—but that it resulted from his willful negligence in failing to comply with the new ASED procedures. Accordingly, ALJ Avery recommended that the SRPS deny Thomas’s claim for special disability benefits under SPP § 29-111(b)(1). Thomas noted exceptions to the proposed decision.

Thomas, 184 Md.App. at 242-245 , 964 A.2d at 733-736 . The Petitioner exercised his right to file exceptions to the ALJ’s proposed decision, 1 and on February 21, 2006, the Board held an exceptions hearing. On March 21, 2006, the Board remanded the case to the Office of Administrative ⁵¹ Hearings (“OAH”) for an ALJ to conduct “a full evidentiary hearing.” The order for remand directed that the ALJ answer the following question: Did the Claimant’s depression disorder with anxiety for which he has been determined to be totally and permanently incapacitated for duty, arise out of or in the course of the actual performance of duty without willful negligence by the claimant? ALJ Stephen Nichols conducted the remand hearing.

On October 5, 2006 ALJ Nichols issued his proposed decision, which included the following factual findings: 7. On October 1, 1980, Thomas was transferred, at his request, from road patrol to the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division (“ASED”) of the MSP. After his transfer into the ASED, the Claimant’s panic attacks gradually stopped. 8. In the ASED, Thomas conducted inspections of Maryland’s authorized vehicle inspection stations.

When the Claimant began working in the ASED the procedures for conducting inspections of authorized vehicle inspection stations were not uniform throughout the State. 9. In January 2000, MSP Special Order 23-0001, entitled, “Monthly Inspection Station Checks,” was issued that established new, uniform ASED procedures for the inspection of authorized vehicle inspection stations and for the documentation of those inspections. 10. On February 8, 2000, Thomas signed a MSP Form 42 acknowledging receipt of Special Order 23-0001. 11. Thomas was present at meetings held his supervisors to review and provide information on the new procedures. 12.

On or about February 6, 2001 Thomas’ immediate supervisor inspected some of the authorized vehicles inspection stations assigned to the Thomas and found that