Total disability award voids later workers’ comp claim, Md. high court says

A Montgomery County firefighter who retired with “total disability retirement benefits” for an on-the-job back injury cannot later seek workers’ compensation when his hearing fades due to his years on the force, Maryland’s top court ruled last week.

In its 6-1 decision, the Court of Appeals said “total disability” means exactly that: The benefits provided are intended to compensate workers not only for their current job-related injuries but those that might later develop.

To permit retirees to also receive workers’ compensation for later disabilities would result in a financial windfall that Maryland law was designed to prevent, the high court stated, citing the state’s Labor and Employment Article.

LE § 9-610 requires that workers’ compensation be awarded if not offset by another benefit the employee or retiree is receiving, the court said. A total disability benefit offsets a later claim for workers’ compensation, the court added in ruling against retired firefighter Patrick Spevak.

“In enacting the offset provision contained in LE § 9-610, the General Assembly sought to preclude employees from receiving duplicative recovery at the taxpayers’ and state’s expense,” Judge Joseph M. Getty wrote for the majority. “Service-connected total disability retirement benefits compensate the recipient for all injuries related to the recipient’s service.”

In dissent, Judge Shirley M. Watts said Maryland law’s prohibition on duplicative recovery prevents workers from being compensated twice for the same injury, which does not apply in Spevak’s case because his hearing loss is distinct from the back problem for which he is being compensated.

“The offset is improper and not authorized by the statute or our case law because the two types of benefits are not at all similar, given that they arise from two different injuries involving two different parts of the body,” Watts wrote.

“Mr. Spevak’s back injury has nothing to do with his hearing loss and tinnitus, and he should not be deprived of benefits for one injury because of benefits for the other,” Watts added. “Such an outcome is inequitable, at odds with our case law, and inconsistent with the clear intent of the General Assembly for offsets to be required under LE § 9-610(a)(1) only where an employee is awarded two types of benefits for the same injury.”

Spevak’s attorney, Kenneth M. Berman, said Monday he was “disappointed” by the court’s ruling.

“I obviously disagree, but I certainly respect the decision,” added Berman, of Berman Sobin Gross LLP in Gaithersburg. “The dissent very much encapsulated what our views were.”

Associate Montgomery County Attorney Wendy B. Karpel, who pressed the successful offset argument, did not immediately return a message Monday seeking comment on the court’s decision.

Spevak’s 2007 back injury contributed to his decision to retire from the fire department in 2010 after more than 30 years on the job, according to court papers.

He was receiving $1,859.07 per week in service-connected total disability payments provided under Montgomery County law when he later began experiencing hearing loss due to the fire alarms, sirens and engines he was exposed to for three decades.

Spevak filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2016.

The state Workers’ Compensation Commission found that the hearing loss was job related but that Spevak was owed no more money because he was already being paid total disability benefits.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals agreed, prompting Spevak to seek review by the Court of Appeals.

Upholding the lower court decisions, the high court explained why Spevak’s weekly benefits for all current and future disability compensation topped out at $1,859.07.

“If Mr. Spevak experienced hearing loss at the time he retired, his weekly compensation would have remained the same because his retirement benefits serve as compensation for the injuries sustained during the course of his employment,” wrote Getty, a retired judge sitting by special assignment.

“Therefore, simply because Mr. Spevak’s hearing loss occurred after he began collecting service-connected total disability retirement benefits, Mr. Spevak cannot avoid the offset provision in LE § 9-610,” Getty added. “To hold that the offset provision does not apply would frustrate the General Assembly’s purpose and intent in enacting the offset provision.”

Getty was joined by Judges Michele D. Hotten, Brynja M. Booth, Jonathan Biran, Sally D. Adkins and Robert N. McDonald. Adkins and McDonald are retired judges who sat by special assignment.

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Patrick Spevak v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 44 September Term 2021.