ABF Freight System3/2/1999
REPORTED
This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim filed by William R. Gilchrist, Sr., appellee, against his employer, ABF Freight Systems, Inc., appellant. The Workers' Compensation Commission denied appellee's claim for compensation, but the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, after a jury trial, awarded compensation. Appellant first filed a timely post-decision motion for rehearing but then sought judicial review while its post-decision motion was pending. The sole issue before us is whether a party's petition for judicial review of an otherwise final decision of the Commission is effective. We hold that the petition filed in this case was effective, and therefore, affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellee received compensation from January 26, 1996, to February 18, 1996 and, subsequently, filed a claim for additional benefits. On December 13, 1996, the Commission held a hearing on that claim, and on December 24, 1996, the Commission denied it. On December 31, 1996, appellee filed a motion for rehearing, pursuant to 9-726 of the Maryland Annotated Code, Labor & Employment article ("LE"). Because the motion was filed within 15 days of the decision, it extended the time for filing a petition for judicial review. See Md. Code, LE 9-726(a) (Supp. 1998). On January 13, 1997, before the Commission ruled on the motion, appellee filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On January 29, 1997, the Commission denied the motion for rehearing.
In the circuit court, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had not rendered a final decision prior to the filing of the petition for judicial review. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case was tried on December 2, 1997. The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of appellee. Appellant appealed to this Court and argues that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
Discussion
Appellant correctly observes that the Commission must have rendered a final decision before it could be judicially reviewed. See Montgomery County v. Ward, 331 Md. 521, 526 (1993); Holiday Spas v. Montgomery County, 315 Md. 390, 395-96 (1989); Murray Int'l v. Graham, 315 Md. 543, 553 (1989); Mission Helpers v. Beasley, 82 Md. App. 155, 161 (1990). Appellant argues that appellee's timely motion for rehearing pursuant to LE 9-726 destroyed the finality of the Commission's decision of December 24, 1996. As a result of the above, according to appellant, the judgment of the circuit court is null and void because there was no final administrative decision prior to the filing of the petition for judicial review. Alternatively, appellant argues that the same result is mandated because appellee failed to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to the proceedings in circuit court. Appellant relies on several decisions rendered by this Court and the Court of Appeals, primarily Montgomery County v. Ward, 331 Md. 521 (1993); Blucher v. Ekstrom, 309 Md. 458 (1987); Merlands Club, Inc. v. Messall, 238 Md. 359 (1965); and Mission Helpers v. Beasley, 82 Md. App. 155 (1990).
Appellant also quotes certain language in LE 9-726, which appellant interprets as postponing the permissible time for appeal by a party who files a motion for rehearing, as distinguished from nonmoving parties who may appeal during the pendency of such a motion. Section 9-726 of the Labor and Employment article provides:
"(a) Filing of Motion. - Within 15 days after the date of a decision by the Commission, a party may file wi
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|