Morton-Wallace v. Maris

CHARLENE MORTON-WALLACE v. STELLA MARIS, et al.

No. 2277

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

December 23, 2020

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No.03-C-17-001292

UNREPORTED

Wright, Reed, Friedman, JJ.

Opinion by Reed, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Charlene Morton-Wallace (hereinafter "Appellant") filed a workers' compensation claim against Stella Maris, her employer, and Mercy Medical Center, the insurer, (collectively "Appellees") for an injury that occurred on July 12, 2005. The Workers' Compensation Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") granted Appellant's request and found that Appellant had sustained a 1% increase in permanent partial disability to her back. The Commission also denied Appellees' Statute of Limitations defense claim. Subsequently, Appellees filed a Petition for judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On November 9, 2017, the Court reversed the Commission's decision. Judge Truffer found that the Commission "misconstrued the law and facts applicable" to the case at bar. On November 17, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion to Alter Judgment and Memorandum, which was denied on December 20, 2017. It is from this denial that Appellant files this timely appeal. In doing so, Appellant brings the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased for clarity:¹

I. Did the circuit court err when it questioned the Commission's findings of fact?

II. Did the circuit court err when it found that the Commission should have granted Appellees' Statute of Limitations defense claim?

For the foregoing reasons, we answer Question I in the negative and Question II we answer in the affirmative and reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2005, Appellant injured her back while lifting a patient during the course of her employment. Appellant filed a claim with the Commission for injuries she sustained to her back and her ribs. On August 25, 2006, the Commission found that Appellant had sustained a 13% industrial loss of her body due to Appellant's back injury. The Commission also found that 6% of Appellant's injuries were due to a pre-existing condition and 0% disability was due to Appellant's rib injury. The Commission awarded Appellant $550.45 per week for temporary total disability and $ 114.00 per week for permanent partial disability. On March 25, 2011, Appellant petitioned to modify the prior award because Appellant alleged that her back injury had worsened. On June 16, 2011, the Commission found that Appellant had sustained a 19% industrial loss of use of her back with 6% due to pre-existing conditions and modified her award.

On June 24, 2016, Appellant filed for a modification for a second time. Appellant alleged that her back condition had worsened. A hearing was set for October 6, 2016, but Appellant filed a Request for Continuance. In Appellant's Request for Continuance,Appellant stated that she filed an Issues Form "right before the statute of limitation" and requested additional time to gather her medical reports. Appellees objected to Appellant's request. The Commission granted the request and on November 11, 2016, Appellees raised a Statute of Limitations defense claim. On January 12, 2017, Appellant was evaluated by Dr. Robert Macht who reported that Appellant's back condition had worsened. On January 12, 2017, Dr. Macht's impairment ratings evaluation report was provided to Appellees. On January 13, 2017, a hearing was held, and Appellees argued that Appellant's impairment ratings report was obtained after the statute of limitations had expired. The Commission ultimately found that Appellant had sustained a 1% increase to the injuries to her back and denied Appellees' Statute of Limitations defense claim.

Subsequently, Appellees filed a Petition for judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On November 9, 2017, the court reversed the Commission's decision. The judge found that the Commission "misconstrued the law and facts applicable in the case decided." On November 17, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion to Alter Judgment and Memorandum, which was denied on December 20, 2017. It is from this denial that Appellant files this timely appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In Montgomery County v. Rios, our Court clearly articulated the standard of review in our cases such as this one, where there is a an "on the record appeal from the Commission:

When reviewing workers' compensation awards in cases where the claimant sought review on the record (rather than a de novo review involving a new evidentiary hearing), we look through the decision of the circuit court and evaluate theCommission's decision directly. W. R. Grace & Co. v. Swedo, 439 Md. 441, 452-53(2014). Our task is "to determine whether the Commission: (1) justly considered all of the facts about the... occupational disease...; (2) exceeded the powers granted to it under [the Act]; or (3) misconstrued the law and the facts applicable in the case decided." [MD. CODE ANN. LAB. & EMPL., §]9-745(c). The court must confirm the decision unless it determines that the Commission exceeded its authority or misconstrued the law or facts." Richard Beavers Construc., Inc. v. Wagstaff, 236 Md. App. 1, 13, 180 A.3d 211, 2018 (citing Uninsured Empl'rs' Fund v. Pennel, 133 Md. App. 279, 288-89, 754 A2d 1120 (2000) Montgomery Cty. v. Cochran, 243 Md. App. 102, 112, 219 A.3d 122 (2019) (alterations in original), cert. granted, No. 379, Sept. Term, 2019 (Md. Feb. 11, 2020). Montgomery County v. Rios, 244 Md. App. 629, 633 (2020)A determination that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations "is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact." Dove v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 178 Md. App. 702, 712, 943 A.2d 662 (2008) (quoting James v. Weisheit, 279 Md. 41, 46, 367 A.2d 482 (1977)). In this case, because the parties agree that the relevant facts are not in dispute, the limitations issue is purely a question of law. Thus, "[i]n an appeal of a workers' compensation case, when the issue presented is an issue of law, 'we review the decision de novo, without deference to the decisions of either the Commission or the circuit court.'" Zakwieia v. Balt. Cty. Bd. of Educ., 231 Md. App. 644, 648, 153 A.3d 888 (2017) (quoting Long v. Injured Workers' Ins. Fund, 225 Md. App. 48, 57, 123 A.3d 562 (2015)).

DISCUSSION

A. Parties' Contentions

Appellant argues that the circuit court used the wrong standard of review when it ruled in Appellees favor. Appellant contends that the circuit court should not have applied a de novo standard of review for an on the record appeal. Specifically, Appellant maintains that the circuit court purports to have applied MD. CODE ANN. LAB. & EMPL., §9-745 (c) as the standard of review that it applied but the court failed to do so. Appellant asserts that the circuit court applied a de novo standard of review because the circuit court declared it "will review the Commission's decision de novo." Appellant contends that the circuit court's task was to determine if the Commission's decision was "unsupported by legallysufficient evidence." Appellant argues that the circuit court's memorandum "finds nothing clearly erroneous about the facts on which the [Commission] relied" on. Appellant further argues that "[i]t is very unusual for a judge without jury [sic] to reverse the [Commission] because of the deference paid to administrative agencies who are deemed to be experts in their field." Appellant maintains that the circuit court was required to find that the Commission was clearly erroneous in its fact finding. Appellant asserts that the Commission waived the requirement for an impairment evaluation before the statute of limitation expired "because [the Commission] found convincing evidence of a change in disability with a basis in fact, as required by Dove and Buskrik." Appellant argues that the Commission has the authority to waive strict compliance with the rules when justice so requires it. Lastly, Appellant argues that the circuit court misconstrued the law applicable to this case. Specifically, Appellant contends that the circuit court "concluded that the [Commission] generally misconstrued the controlling law without specifying [the Commission's] error."

Appellees respond that the circuit court applied the correct standard of review for an on the record appeal. Specifically, Appellees contend that Appellant is misguided when Appellant states that the circuit court applied a de novo standard of review. Appellees argue that "it is clear from the [c]ircuit [c]ourt's Memorandum Opinion that it is referring specifically to a de novo review of the legal question at hand, and not the facts of the case." Appellees maintain that the circuit court made it clear in its memorandum that the facts to this case are undisputed. Appellees argue that this case requires an on the record appeal which requires this Court to take "no new evidence" and that this Court "reviews theproceedings before the Commission as a matter of law." Appellees maintain that after the circuit court concluded that the facts were undisputed the circuit court then concluded that the issue before it involved "only a legal question to be reviewed de novo."

Lastly, Appellees argue that the Commission misconstrued the law as it applied to the facts, when it denied Appellees' Statute of Limitation defense claim. Appellees further argue that since the facts were undisputed and confined within the record, the circuit court was "left only with an analysis as to whether the Commission misconstrued the law." Appellees maintain that pursuant to COMAR 14.09.09.02 Appellant was required to obtain a written impairment...