Maryland – eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – March/April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

Sutton v. Queen Anne’s Cnty. Comm’rs
Appellate Court of Maryland
2025 WL 520605

Decided: February 18, 2025

The Commission did not err in denying an employee’s reimbursement claim for expenses related to driving to and from work in his personal vehicle.

Background

Claimant worked as a Queen Anne’s County Sheriff when he injured his shoulder and had surgery. He was returned to work light duty. The regulations that pertain to Sheriffs in Queen Anne’s County prohibit a sheriff on light duty from operating or riding in a marked patrol vehicle. Therefore, Claimant could not drive his patrol car from his home to work, and back, while on light duty.

Claimant submitted mileage expenses to the carrier for the travel in his personal vehicle to and from work while he was on light duty. The Employer and Insurer denied these mileage expenses, stating that they were beyond the scope of the applicable statute, Labor and Employment 9-660 which allows claimants to submit mileage expenses related to medical treatment or medically necessary accommodations.

This issue went to a hearing and the WCC found in favor of the Employer and Insurer. Claimant appealed this denial of mileage to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County. Both parties submitted Motions for Summary Judgment, and a hearing was held. The Appellate Court of Maryland issued its opinion finding for the Employer and Insurer, and discussed the scope of permissible reimbursement of expenses under LE 9-660.

The Court finds that LE 9-660 allows for reimbursement of medical treatment, attendance at medical treatment, hospital and nursing care, medications, crutches and other apparatus, and prosthetics. The Court concluded that the use of the personal vehicle was not related to treatment and was not the result of a medical determination or recommendation. Therefore, the Appellate Court concluded that the mileage expenses for Claimant’s commute in his personal vehicle while on light duty was not a medical expense, or otherwise related to his medical status per LE 9-660 and should not have been reimbursed by the carrier.

Holding

LE 9-660 does not provide for reimbursement of expenses related to a claimant driving to and from work in a personal vehicle while on light duty.

Takeaway

This unreported intermediate appellate decision analyzes the scope of well trodden ground- Claimant’s entitlement to reimbursement of mileage expenses related to medical treatment and medical conditions. However, in what may be a positive trend, the Appellate Court refused to expand this statute to include additional non-medical benefits even after it considers the benevolent purposes of the WC statute in general.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ruth Jacobs at (443) 641-0573 or rjacobs@tthlaw.com.

In re: Roksiewicz
No. 2062, Sept. 2023
Appellate Court of Maryland

Decided: March 19, 2025

Background

On September 3, 2015, the Claimant sustained a work injury. The Employer commenced Temporary Total Disability (TTD) on September 14, 2015, and filed a termination of TTD effective November 8, 2015. Claimant was paid no TTD after November 8, 2015. Claimant litigated his need for medical treatment at the WCC twice thereafter, but never re-opened his claim for indemnity benefits until 10/2/2021 when he filed for PPD. At the PPD hearing the Employer argued that the PPD claim was time barred as the statute of limitations ran in November 2020, 5 years after the last benefits paid. Claimant argued that the Employer was estopped from arguing the statute of limitations. Claimant argued he relied upon a 6/7/2018 Notice of Termination stating medical expenses would no longer be covered by the Employer that was mistakenly filed on a Notice of Termination of TTD form. The Employer admitted that the June 7, 2018, Notice was issued, but confirmed the last date of TTD was 11/8/2015. The WCC found that because no compensation was paid to the Claimant after November 8, 2015, the PPD claim was time barred. The Circuit Court found that the Claimant’s purported reliance on the Termination Notice was unreasonable and did not estop the Employer from invoking the statute of limitations.

Holding

The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not preclude the Employer from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The parties were on equal footing to investigate the application of limitations. The Claimant reviewed his bank records and was in a unique position to ascertain when the Statute would run. The Court also noted that the Claimant was not made aware of the June 2018 Notice until 2021 and his reliance on the June 2018 Notice was unreasonable.

Takeaway

This is the second recent opinion on the issue favoring employers and insurers, even after the benevolent purposes of the WC statute were considered. The Appellate Court has refused to expand 9-736 to hold that a voluntary but errant Notice equitably estopped the Employer from denying the Claimant’s untimely PPD claim.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ruth M. D. Jacobs at (443) 641-0573 or rjacobs@tthlaw.com.