Sanders v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty.

477 Md. 1

265 A.3d 1083

Linda A. SANDERS

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, et al.

No. 20, Sept. Term, 2021

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

December 17, 2021

Argued by Michael J. Foley (Bruce M. Bender, Axelson, Williamowsky, Bender & Fishman, P.C., Rockville, MD), on brief for Petitioner.

Argued by David A. Skomba (Angela Garcia Kozlowski, Franklin & Prokopik, PC, Baltimore, MD), on brief for Respondent

Argued before: McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Watts, J. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.) ("LE") §§ 9-101 to 9-1201, expressly provides the Workers' Compensation Commission ("the Commission") with continuing jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims in several provisions. One such provision— LE § 9-736(b) —authorizes the Commission to modify its findings or orders and provides as follows:

(1) The Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction over each claim under this title.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Commission may modify any finding or order as the Commission considers justified.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the Commission may not modify an award unless the modification is applied for within 5 years after the latter of:

(i) the date of the accident;

(ii) the date of disablement; or

(iii) the last compensation payment.

In response to a motion or request to reopen or modify under LE § 9-736(b), the Commission may grant the request, hold a hearing at which evidence is considered and afterward issue a decision granting or denying the requested relief. On the other hand, the Commission may also deny a request to reopen or modify without reopening the case for the receipt of additional evidence or a hearing, and without considering the merits of the request or earlier order and making new findings. This is generally called a summary denial. In this case, we have been asked to consider whether the Commission's summary denial of a motion to reopen or modify under LE § 9-736(b) is subject to judicial review.

Linda A. Sanders, Petitioner, worked as a school bus driver for the Board of Education of Harford County, which is insured by the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (together, "Respondents"). Sanders filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Commission due to an accident that occurred on the job. The Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued an order that approved Sanders's request for four additional weeks of physical therapy for her left shoulder but denied her request for authorization for surgery on the left shoulder. Sanders did not seek judicial review of the Commission's decision or request a rehearing. Several months later, Sanders underwent surgery on her left shoulder, using her health insurance to pay the costs.

Over three years later, Sanders filed with the Commission a request for modification of the earlier order denying the request for authorization for surgery, seeking payment of her surgeon's bills. The Commission denied the request without a hearing and Sanders filed in the Circuit Court for Harford County a petition for judicial review. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, and the circuit court granted the motion.

Less than three months after filing the initial request for modification, Sanders filed with the Commission a second request for modification of the Commission's initial order, again raising the issue of authorization for surgery and requesting identical relief, i.e. , payment of her surgeon's bills. As with the first request to reopen, the Commission denied the second request without a hearing. Sanders filed in the circuit court a petition for judicial review.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition. After conducting a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the circuit court denied the motion. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and an amended memorandum opinion denying Respondents' motion for summary judgment, granting Sanders's motion, and remanding the case to the Commission for action on Sanders's second request for modification.

Respondents appealed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment. See Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cty. v. Sanders, 250 Md. App. 85, 100-01, 248 A.3d 1108, 1117 (2021). The Court of Special Appeals held that the circuit court erred in denying Respondents' motion to dismiss because the Commission has broad discretion to summarily deny a request to reopen under LE § 9-736(b) "and such a denial is not subject to judicial review." Id. at 94, 248 A.3d at 1113 (bolding omitted). We granted certiorari to consider whether the Commission's summary denial of a request to reopen or modify pursuant to LE § 9-736(b) is subject to judicial review. See Sanders v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cty., 475 Md. 2, 256 A.3d 270 (2021).

We must decide whether the Commission's summary denial of Sanders's second request for modification under LE § 9-736(b) was subject to judicial review. We hold that it was not and that, where a party requests that the Commission reopen or modify a claim and the Commission summarily denies the request without a hearing and does not consider new evidence or the merits of the request to reopen, or make findings with respect to the merits of the request or of the earlier order in the issuance of a new or amended order, the Commission's denial is not subject to judicial review. In this case, the Commission issued an initial order in which it, among other things, denied Sanders's request for authorization for shoulder surgery. Sanders did not file a petition for judicial review or request a rehearing. Several months later, although the Commission did not authorize shoulder surgery, Sanders underwent shoulder surgery and paid for it using her health insurance. Over three years later, Sanders filed a request for modification of the Commission's order, which was denied. Sanders filed a second request for modification of the Commission's order, raising the same issue as in the first request—authorization for shoulder surgery and requesting payment of her surgeon's bills. The Commission denied the second request for modification without a hearing, stating only that the request was denied. In the order denying the second request for modification, the Commission did not address the merits or discuss the propriety of the request or of the initial order.

The Commission summarily denied the second request for modification, and in accord with the longstanding principles set forth in our case law, we conclude that Sanders did not have the right to seek judicial review of the summary denial. As such, the circuit court erred in denying Respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for judicial review and cross-motion for summary judgment and in granting Sanders's motion for summary judgment and remanding the case to the Commission for action on the second request for modification.

BACKGROUND

Proceedings Before the Commission and in the Circuit Court

On November 17, 2014, Sanders filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Commission, alleging that she sustained injuries to her head, neck, spine, and arm on October 7, 2014, while working as a school bus driver for children with special needs. Sanders described the accident as follows:

16 yr. old f. student twisted my hair thru her fingers, wrapped around her hands made fist,[ ]knuckles dug into my head as she rolled her fist and yanked my head around by my hair[ ]. While bent over at ?, head bent over hooking students wheelchair to bus floor belt. Took 2 people to get her hair [sic] out of my hair.

(Some capitalization omitted). Sanders later filed a corrected claim, alleging that she had sustained injuries to her head, neck, spine, arm, and left shoulder.

On June 15, 2015, the Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which the parties presented testimony and other evidence. At the hearing, Sanders's testimony about the accident was consistent with the description of the incident provided in her claim.

At the hearing, among other things, Sanders's counsel sought approval for exploratory surgery to Sanders's left shoulder. Respondents' counsel argued that it appeared that Sanders had already discussed surgery with physicians, that surgery had been recommended against, and that Sanders had acknowledged that she understood she was not a candidate for shoulder arthroplasty. Respondents' counsel pointed out that there was "no recommendation for a surgical consult by any doctor."

After the hearing, the Commission issued an order dated June 25, 2015 in which it found that, as a result of the injury on October 7, 2014, Sanders was paid temporary total disability benefits from October 8, 2014 to December 18, 2014, and that the average weekly wage was $748.61. In the order, the Commission denied Sanders's claim for additional temporary total disability benefits from March 4, 2015 to March 19, 2015 and from March 26, 2015 "to the present and continuing[.]" The Commission approved Sanders's request for authorization for four additional weeks of physical therapy for her left shoulder. In the order, however, the Commission denied Sanders's requests for authorization for surgery to the left shoulder, a referral to a spine specialist, and an EMG/NCS.¹ Sanders did not seek judicial review of the Commission's decision.

On September 30, 2015, Sanders underwent surgery on her left shoulder performed by Dr. Anand Murthi, using her health insurance to pay the costs.

Over three years later, on October 15, 2018, Sanders filed with the Commission a "Request for Modification," seeking modification of the Commission's June 25, 2015 order. (Bolding and some capitalization omitted). In the request, Sanders raised an "Issue[ ]" for "[a]uthorization for medical...