Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals Reinforces the Discretion Granted to the Workers’ Compensation Commission
In an opinion recently released by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the Court has held that a refusal by the Workers' Compensation Commission to reopen a claim pursuant to Claimant’s request is not subject to judicial review. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty. v. Sanders, No. 111 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 31, 2021).
Procedurally, this case arose from a claim originally filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission of Maryland (“the Commission”), on November 17, 2014. Claimant had sustained an injury while working as a school bus driver for The Board of Education of Harford County (“Employer”). A full evidentiary hearing was held before the Commission on June 15, 2015 to address the merits of the claim. By Order dated June 25, 2015, the Commission denied Claimant’s request for authorization for surgery to the left shoulder. Notably, Claimant did not file a petition for judicial review of the Commission’s decision. Claimant ultimately underwent left shoulder surgery on September 30, 2015.
On October 15, 2018—over three years after the original hearing date—Claimant filed a request for modification of the June 25, 2015 Order. Claimant sought modification of the original Order by way of payment of medical bills associated with the 2015 left shoulder surgery. On October 16, 2018, and without holding a hearing, the Commission denied Claimant’s request. Subsequently, on January 3, 2019, Claimant filed an additional request for modification of the June 25, 2015 Order. The relief sought mimicked the relief stated in the October 15, 2018 request for modification. Significantly, the Claimant did not assert a worsening of condition due to the left shoulder surgery at any time. By Order dated January 4, 2019, the Commission again denied Claimant’s request for modification, again without holding a hearing on the request.
Claimant then filed a petition for judicial review of this denial on January 31, 2019. Following a series of motions by the parties (including a motion to dismiss filed by the Employer), the trial court ultimately remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to consider Claimant’s request for modification and to identify any exercise of discretion in its decision. The employer then filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals (“COSA”) on March 27, 2020.
In the comprehensive opinion that followed, COSA held that the trial court erred in denying Employer’s motion to dismiss, as the Commission summarily denied Claimant’s request for modification, and such decision cannot be the subject of judicial review. In support of this determination, COSA noted that Maryland courts have consistently held that the Commission’s decision to deny a request to reopen or modify the claim is a non-reviewable determination.
Significantly, COSA wrote that if the Commission had considered the merits of the Claimant’s request for modification by accepting new evidence or arguments, that decision would have been reviewable. However, as the Commission summarily rejected Claimant’s January 3, 2019 request for modification, COSA concluded that no basis for judicial review was present. COSA also emphasized the fact that the basis of the request for modification was the payment of outstanding medical bills in relation to the Claimant’s left shoulder surgery, which was an issue that was previously decided (and denied) by the Commission in its June 25, 2015 Order.
Overall, this opinion clarifies the inability to take an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, if it does not address the merits of the claim. In addition, the opinion bolsters the longstanding principle that appellate courts will frequently defer to the Commission’s discretion on a wide range of matters. Finally, it provides notice to the Commission by suggesting that requests for modification that are accompanied by a hearing will likely be considered appropriate for judicial review. Accordingly, if a Commissioner believes further litigation is unsuitable for a claim involving a request for modification of a prior order, that Commissioner should rule on these requests without scheduling a hearing.
Ben Seider