Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0481 September Term, 2004

ZBIGNIEW FEDOROWICZ v. STATE RETIREMENT AND PENSION SYSTEM OF MARYLAND

Eyler, James R., Kenney, Adkins, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: September 15, 2005

In this appeal from the denial of accidental disability retirement benefits, we interpret the following limitations period established by Md. Code (1993, 2004 Repl. Vol.), section 29104(d)(2) of the State Personnel and Pensions Article (SPP): The Board of Trustees [for the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland] may not accept an application for accidental disability filed by a member or former member more than 5 years after the date of the claimed accident. Guided by precedent construing an analogous statute governing similar claims by Baltimore City employees, we shall hold that the five year limitations period applies to state employees whose accidental disability retirement applications were initiated or submitted by their employer agency. In addition, we shall hold

that the five year deadline may not be extended based upon when the disability was discovered. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS As a civilian employee of the Maryland State Police (MSP), appellant Zbignew Fedorowicz was a "member" of the Employee's Pension System (EPS), and therefore eligible for retirement

benefits under the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland (SRPS). Fedorowicz, an automotive specialist, suffered a fractured right shoulder on July 19, 1996, in an accident that occurred while he was replacing a tire at the MSP Garage Barrack. Following

surgery on July 26, he returned first to light duty, then to regular duty, by October 30. Pain continued in his injured shoulder throughout the time he

was working full-time.

His arm was re-fractured, allegedly "as a

result of the July 1996 accident," leading to additional surgery in May 2000. Fedorowicz returned to light duty on September 11, 2000. He performed eight months of temporary light duty assignments. But Fedorowicz could no longer raise his right arm above his shoulder or "push, twist, use force to loosen or tighten bolts, nuts, or lift heavy objects" with that arm. He acknowledges that these

tasks are essential to performing the full duties of an automotive specialist. The MSP, however, did not have a permanent light duty

position available for Fedorowicz. In April 2001, MSP Medical Director Dr. Phillip Phillips summoned Fedorowicz to a meeting. According to Fedorowicz,1 Dr.

Phillips advised that he "would have no problem" recommending him for an accidental disability retirement. To process the claim,

Phillips told Fedorowicz, he would need a functional capabilities exam, which could be performed by physicians designated by the MSP. In Fedorowicz's presence, Phillips instructed MSP's Disability Retirement Coordinator, Michelle Miller, "to prepare the necessary paperwork in conjunction with the request for accidental disability retirement." Fedorowicz "understood this conversation between Dr.

Phillips and Ms. Miller to mean that Ms. Miller's office would be responsible for the filing of any disability claim on my behalf."

Fedorowicz's account of relevant events affidavit and his Statement of Disability. 2

1

appears

in

his

On May 21 and June 26, 2001, Fedorowicz underwent two medical exams to which he had been referred by Dr. Phillips. were arranged and paid for by the MSP. The exams

"On approximately July 3,

2001," Miller telephoned Fedorowicz to tell him "she had not yet received the results from the doctors." She asked Fedorowicz to

call those doctors to "request that their offices forward the evaluations to the MSP." Fedorowicz did so, then informed Miller When

that both doctors said that their reports were on their way.

Fedorowicz asked what he should do next, Miller told him to "just wait." The exam results indicated that Fedorowicz could not perform the duties necessary to return to full duty as an automotive specialist. Fedorowicz was called in October to meet with managers from the MSP's human resources and motor vehicle departments. an October 17, 2001 "Options" meeting, MSP officials At told

Fedorowicz that he could no longer remain on light duty status. Fedorowicz was given three alternatives: (1) resign, (2) work for another six months while he applied for disability retirement, or (3) be terminated. Fedorowicz chose the second option.

Fedorowicz executed his Statement of Disability on October 15, 2001. At the bottom of page one, the forms necessary to complete

an accidental disability retirement are listed, preceded by the following notice: IMPORTANT: The Retirement Agency's counselors and your Agency's 3

retirement coordinators will help you to complete and forward the following forms, but, ultimately, it is your responsibility to insure that all of the following forms are completed and submitted with this form. Fedorowicz returned the form to Miller, who signed it and dated it October 22, 2001. The Board received Fedorowicz's

application on October 29, 2001, five years and three months after the accident in which he was injured. Fedorowicz continued to work until July 2002. By letter dated February 6, 2002, the Board of Trustees of the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS and the Board), appellee, advised Fedorowicz that it could not consider him for accidental disability benefits because his application was filed after the five year deadline Board established considered in the SPP claim was section as one 29-104(d)(2). for ordinary an

Instead, the disability

retirement.

Fedorowicz

ultimately

granted

ordinary disability retirement, which does not require a showing that the disability was caused by a work-related accident, but it provides lower benefits. Fedorowicz obtained an administrative review of the Board's refusal to consider his application. The ALJ granted summary

decision on the basis of the five year limitations period in SPP section 29-104(d)(2). affirmed. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Fedorowicz noted this timely appeal, raising several 4

issues that we rephrase as two: I. Is the five year limitations period in SPP section 29-104(d)(2) inapplicable when the accidental disability retirement claim is initiated and/or submitted by the employer agency rather than by the employee? Is the five year limitations period in SPP section 29-104(d)(2) tolled until the employee discovers his disability?

II.

We answer "no" to both questions and affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION Review Of The Board's Decision We must review the Board's decision not to consider to

Fedorowicz's

accidental

disability

retirement

application

determine if it is premised upon an error of law. Kahl, 366 Md. 158, 171 (2001).

See Marzullo v.

Here, the dispositive issue is

whether the Board properly interpreted and applied SPP section 29104(d)(2). We give significant weight and deference to the Board's interpretation of statutes that it regularly applies. Transp. Auth. v. King, 369 Md. 274, 288 (2002). that the Board's decision is prima facie correct. See Md.

We also presume See Marsheck v.

Bd. of Trustees of the Fire & Police Employees' Retirement Sys. of Baltimore City, 358 Md. 393, 402 (2000). In construing a statute, we seek to determine and implement the General Assembly's intent. See id. We begin with the

5

statutory language, reading it in light of the entire statutory scheme. See id. at 403. If the meaning of the words "is plain and

definite, our inquiry as to the legislature's intent will end[.]" Id. (citation omitted). Accidental Disability Retirement Title 29 of the State Personnel and Pensions Article governs disability benefits for members of the Employees' Retirement System covering state employees like Fedorowicz. The Board must grant accidental disability allowances to a member if: retirement

(1) the member is totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident that occurred in the actual performance of duty at a definite time and place without willful negligence by the member; and (2) the medical board certifies that: (i) the member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of the normal duties of the member's position; (ii) the incapacity is likely to be permanent; and (iii) the member should be retired. SPP

Download Fedorowicz v. State Retirement.pdf

Maryland Law