Preview:

HEADNOTE: Ronnchey Lynn King v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, No. 1719, September Term, 1997

_________________________________________________________________ WORKER'S COMPENSATION -- OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE -A stress-induced mental disorder may constitute a compensable occupational disease only if the stress is created by conditions particular and peculiar to the general nature of the employment.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1719 September Term, 1997

RONNCHEY LYNN KING

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY

Eyler, Smith, Marvin H. (Ret., specially assigned), Karwacki, Robert L. (Ret., specially assigned), JJ. Opinion by Eyler, J. Filed: September 1, 1998

This case presents the issue of whether a mental disorder1 stemming from work-related stress may be compensable as an occupational disease under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act ("Act"), Md. Code Ann., Labor & Employment Article (LE), Title IX (1991 Repl. Vol., 1997 Supp.).2 We shall hold that, on the facts

of this case, it is not compensable as a matter of law. Facts On September 14, 1983, Ronnchey King, claimant and appellant, became employed as a substitute school bus driver by the Board of Education of Prince George's County, employer, selfinsurer, and appellee. Subsequently, appellant became an

auxiliary bus driver, an assistant foreman, and transportation technician. In September, 1992, she became a transportation

assistant and also fulfilled the duties of a transportation technician. In the summer of 1995, appellant's duties and Appellant's duties

supervisory responsibilities increased.

included editing a transportation handbook, scheduling bus service and establishing bus routes, supervising bus drivers,

To borrow from the words of another court, we use the term "mental disorder" in a general sense and intend "neither to convey a precise medical meaning nor to provide . . . a basis for limitation or extension of the type of [claim] deemed compensable under the [Maryland Worker's] Compensation Act." Joseph Albanese's Case, 389 N.E.2d 83, 84 n.1 (Mass. 1979). Unless we indicate to the contrary, all statutory references are to Md. Code Ann., Labor & Employment Article, Title IX (1991 Repl. Vol., 1997 Supp.) -12

1

conducting daily safety meetings and drug testing.

According to

appellant's testimony before the Worker's Compensation Commission ("Commission"), appellant was responsible for making sure that thousands of students received timely bus service to school, and often was provided with an inadequate supply of buses to accomplish this goal. It is undisputed that appellant was

working long hours with considerable stress and responsibility throughout most, if not all, of her employment by appellee. Appellant began consulting Dr. Ralph Wadeson, a psychiatrist, on March 23, 1995. At that time, her "chief

complaint was one of being extremely nervous with crying jags, chest pains, fatigue, aches and pains, tiredness, and she did not care about eating." At that time she also had been taking

Amiltriptyline, 25 mg at bedtime, Zoloft, 50 mg a day, for eight weeks, and then Xanax, 0.25 mg, for nervousness. Appellant

reported that she had been having "crying jags" for no reason at all and that she was extremely impatient and irritable, both at home and on the job. In September, 1995, Dr. Wadeson diagnosed

appellant as having "somatization disorder, 300.81" and "major depression 296.2."3

We presume that these terms and corresponding numbers refer to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The definitions of those mental illnesses are lengthy and do not add to our analysis of the instant case. Thus, we have not reproduced them. We note, however, that "somatization disorder" generally is characterized (continued...) -2-

3

On October 16, 1995, appellant left work and, in her own words, she "just busted out crying and felt like if [she] didn't lay down [she] was going to die, sick to [her] stomach." Dr.

Wadeson described appellant's symptoms in October, 1995, as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and chest pains. Dr. Wadeson

described her symptoms in December, 1995, as "lots of pain, headaches, pain in her abdomen, chest, and hip. She [was] having

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and cramping in her gastrointestinal system, and she was having a loss of her libido. She also had

balance problems and was confused in her verbalizations, and was very unsteady on her feet." As of the time of her hearing before

the Commission in July 1996, appellant had not worked since October 16, 1995. On April 1, 1996, appellant filed a claim with the Commission alleging an occupational disease. In her claim form,

she characterized the disease as a "nervous breakdown resulting from 3 different positions at one time. hours a day to keep up." Also putting in 12-14

Appellant alleged that the disease

occurred on October 16, 1995, and that it arose out of and in the course of her employment by appellee. The Commission held a

hearing on July 16 on two issues: (1) whether appellant sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her

(...continued) by a history of physical complaints that cannot be explained by a general medical condition or substance abuse. -3-

3

employment; and (2) the extent of appellant's temporary total disability. At the hearing, appellant described the events leading up to her departure from work as follows: Q. Can you describe what was happening in September and October of 1995 when you were in the position of transportation management analyst that you believe created any problems for you in the performance of your duties? A. Q. I was just overloaded. What do you mean?

A. I was doing part of the technician's job, trying to get the handbook out. I had 13 magnet schools that the children had to be reassigned to. I had no busses. I did not have resources. I opened a new facility for Head Start with 200 children going in the a.m. and 200 children going in the p.m. We also had a new subscription called Summer Field. I did not have any busses and I was expected to cram them on anything I could find to get those children to school on time and maintain the rest of the routes on time. Q. Were there any particular problems during that timeframe with the failure of the bus system to operate properly? A. Yes. When I would ask for help from some supervisors that had spares, they wouldn't give them to me. Q. What problems, if any, did you begin to have as you assumed the responsibilities that were in addition to the position that you were in at a given point in time? A. The other assistants did not cooperate.

-4-

Q. How did that affect your ability to perform your own duties in this period of time? A. It made my busdrivers very upset. And when I would go to the lot in the morning, you know, I was bombarded as soon as I got out of the car. You know, why can't this bus help; why can't this bus help? And I would go and ask that supervisor, Why can't you help, and they said no. And then at one particular instance there was no reason, and Mr. Savoid said, No, don't mix the neighborhood. So I got a bus -- she had a bus with 30 and I got a bus with 65 kids on it going right past the stop, and she wouldn't allow her driver to stop and pick up the children. So then here my bus driver is, pouring down rain, the windows are fogged up, you got 65 high school children on a bus and a fight breaks out, that is not good. * * * Q. And what happened the days before October 16th, 1995, that affected your ability to do your job, if anything? * * * A. The day that I had had it. I was staying later at the bus lot. I was doing more work at home, more work at home because home was -- you know, I have two children and a husband and I have no more stress than anyone else, you know. I like to see them. And I would continue to do work at home and take the disc out and go to my office and put it in the PC there and finish. I was the only supervisor that had a PC and computer terminal. Q. Did there come a time that you could no longer perform your duties at work? A. Yes. I just -- I don't know what happened. I had a good opening of the school -5-

year because I did my homework during the summer. I had retripped a lot of my routes to make sure they were efficient, but we had no new busses, but yet we were expected to squeeze 4,200 children or 4,500 children, whatever it was, on the existing busses. I had principals calling me, telling me that the busses were getting there late for my magnet schools. I had parents telling me that they're going to sue the Board of Education because if their kids get in an accident with an overcrowded bus, this type of stuff. THE COMMISSION: So what happened? THE WITNESS: So I originally was running fine. I had not started my drug testing yet because I didn't have time and perform the 5:00 safety meetings. We have safety meetings at 5:00 in the morning. I give three safety meetings on those particular days. Come to the office, answer a thousand phone calls. Because the kids aren't on busses. Q. Did there come a time that you could no longer perform your duties, and when was the last day that you worked? A. Q. 10/16/95. What happened that day?

A. I went home and just busted out crying and felt like if I didn't lay down I was going to die, sick to my stomach. My husband took me to the doctor. The Commission disallowed the claim by order dated July 26, 1996. The order stated that "[t]he Commission finds on the issue

presented that the claimant did not sustain an occupational disease (stress) arising out of and in the course of employment

-6-

as alleged to have occurred on October 16, 1995[.]" Appellant filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Appellee filed a

motion for summary judgment on the ground that mental injury caused by stress could not form the basis for an occupational disease as a matter of law. During the hearing of that motion,

the trial judge interrupted appellant's counsel to pose the following line of questions: THE COURT: Am I to understand now that an occupational disease should translate to all identical positions that there are of that nature [transportation management analyst]? Am I not correct? APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Correct. THE COURT: So we would take the Prince George's County Board of Education transportation system, the Montgomery County transportation -- Board of Education transportation system, the Baltimore County one, the Baltimore City one, and they would all be compared. And, therefore, all of those who were in her position in those counties would also be eligible if I were to find that she is eligible. APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Correct. If, in fact, the mental disorder that results from the stress associated with that particular responsibility is related. THE COURT: Now, suppose Montgomery County has two people working six hours a day, and Baltimore County has two people working six hours a day, but Prince George's County has one person working twelve hours a day, it would not be [endemic]. It would just simply be Prince George's County has one person where they should have two. -7-

APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: I think it would be very difficult to prove in the case of a part-time employee stress associated with work overload. In this case, particular case, what is happening in the year, year and a half, time there was a transition in the administration. Ms. King suffered because people were placed in administrative positions that were not qualified. For example, there was a principal from Bowie High School who had never worked within the Department of Transportation that came in to take over Ms. King's position when she was promoted to the position of Transportation Management Analyst. And what happened is he showed up and within two days realized, I can't perform this job function. And then he went ahead and he started taking leave. He didn't fulfill that role. So Ms. King then not only had to perform her old job, she took responsibilities from the new job that she was now acting. THE COURT: Well, Counsel, is that occupational? Or is that just simply how the Prince George's County Board of Education Transportation System, or whatever, is running its job? I mean it's not [endemic] to the position. APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: It is particular. THE COURT: It's a humanitarian problem. APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Correct. THE COURT: But, if it's a managerial problem, it is not occupational disease, it's poor management. * * * APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Your Honor, there -8-

are instances where a child has been left alone at a bus stop, where parents have sued the Board of Education for that, and it was Ms. King's responsibility to attend to a situation like that. Again, she's looking at not only the liability of the Board, but the safety of the child. Again, you are confronted with these situations over and over and over again, and Ms. King snapped. And anyone, under her circumstances, given the pressures and responsibilities. She brought work home. Work was being brought home so that she could operate the computer at home, memorizing ten thousand bus routes. She snapped as a result of this. THE COURT: As I said, Ms. DiGiovanni, that is too much for one person. But the job itself is not that. They are putting too much on one person, from your description of what went on. APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Correct. THE COURT: But it is not the job. It is how Prince George's County sees fit to run the job. APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: You are saying it is not particular to the position that she held because that position, managed properly in other Counties, would not have resulted in similar circumstances? THE COURT: That is exactly what I am saying. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the motion. This appeal followed. Standard of Review The summary judgment procedures provided in Rule 2-501 are

-9-

available in de novo appeals from the Commission to a circuit court, Dawson's Charter Service v. Chin, 68 Md. App. 433, 440 (1986), and the general rules governing the entry of summary judgment apply with equal force to such cases. Commercial Union

v. Harleysville, 110 Md. App. 45, 51-52, cert. denied, 343 Md. 679 (1996). Under such well-settled principles, we must

determine whether the trial court's entry of judgment was legally correct. (1995); (1993). Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Lane, 338 Md. 34, 43 Beatty v. Trailmaster Products, Inc., 330 Md. 726, 737 Further, in making this determination, we are required Southland

to resolve all factual inferences against appellee. Corp. v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704, 712 (1993). Discussion

As we noted at the outset, the sole issue in this case is whether appellant's mental disorder, allegedly caused by workrelated stress, is compensable as an occupational disease under the Act. More specifically, the question is whether such a

disability fails, as a matter of law, to meet the requirements of LE

Download King v. Board of Educ. P.G.County.pdf

Maryland Law