Workers’ Compensation Edited by P. Matthew Darby
P. Matthew Darby is a partner in the firm of Albertini & Darby, LLP, of Baltimore and received his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. Mr. Darby is a member of MTLA’s President’s Club as a Founder and serves as a member of the Membership Committee. His practice concentrates in the representation of injured workers in Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Claims, Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Claims, Federal Employers’ Liability Act Claims and general liability claims before various state and federal courts.
Is Mileage Reimbursable Under
The Workers’ Compensation Act? by Franklin J. Muher
Franklin J. Muher is a partner in the firm of Glusing & Muher, LLC. He is a graduate of Bucknell University and received his J.D. from the Syracuse University College of Law. Mr. Muher served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Robert H. Heller, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Muher served as staff counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company from 1995 to 1999. He is a member of MTLA and a member of MTLA’s Workers’ Compensation Section. He concentrates his practice in the fields of workers’ compensation and personal injury.
As some of us have recently discovered, certain workers’ compensation carriers have taken the position that, under the Work- ers’ Compensation Act, they are not obligated to pay for an injured worker’s transportation costs to and from visits to health care providers. When first presented with the situation myself, I turned to the Act to find the provision addressing trans- portation costs to and from health care providers. At present, however, there exists no clear mandate in the statute to provide for reimbursement of transportation costs. A closer look at this issue, however, shows that the carriers’ stance on this issue is with- out merit. In fact, not only are transportation costs to and from health care providers reimbursable, but also, mileage incurred while undergoing most vocational rehabilitation services is also reimbursable. In defense of its position, insurance car- riers center their arguments around the language of the Act. Specifically, they con- tend that, as Workers’ Compensation law is statutorily created and because the only part of the Act that specifically references transportation costs is the section pertain- ing to vocational rehabilitation benefits, there is no requirement to pay for trans- portation costs for any other purpose. The argument is short-sighted, however, and it is with a review of the Act, principles of statutory construction and pertinent case law, that the carriers’ argument ends, and their obligation to reimburse for transpor- tation costs begins. The Workers’ Compensation Act is un- like most other areas of the law when its statutory provisions are being interpreted. Recently, in Philip Electronics North America v. Wright, 348 Md. 209, 703 A.2d 150 (1997), the Court of Appeals under-
26
took a thorough review of this unique rela- tionship and recognized that
the Act is remedial in nature and
‘should be construed as liberally in fa- vor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes.’ Thus, in inter- preting the Act, we do not apply the canon of construction that a statute in derogation of the common law should be strictly construed. § 9-102(b). More- over, all sections of the Act must be read together, in conjunction with one an- other, to discern the true intent of the legislature. Of course, we seek to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an untenable or illogical outcome. In construing the Act, as in constru- ing all statutes, the paramount objective is to ascertain and give effect to the in- tent of the legislature.
In interpreting
the Act, we apply the following general principles. First, if the plain meaning of the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and consistent with both the broad purposes of the legislation, and the specific purpose of the provision being interpreted, our inquiry is at an end. Second, when the meaning of the plain language is ambiguous or unclear, we seek to discern the intent of the legislature from surrounding circum- stances, such as legislative history, prior case law, and the purposes upon which the statutory framework was based. Last, applying a canon of construction specific to the Act, if the intent of the legislature is ambiguous or remains un- clear, we resolve any uncertainty in favor of the claimant.
Trial Reporter
(citations omitted) Philip Electronics North America v. Wright, 348 Md. at 216- 17. It is with this framework in mind that we examine the injured worker’s ability to obtain reimbursement for transportation costs incurred while traveling to and from health care providers. By simply reviewing the language of the sections of the Act that pertain to vocational rehabilitation, we gain valuable insight into the lack of merit in the insurers’ position. Section 9-674 of the Labor and Employ- ment Article states, in pertinent part: § 9-674. Payment of Expenses, com- pensation, maintenance, and transportation costs; duration of training.
(d) Transportation costs. - (1) . . ., a cov- ered employee who resides at home during vocational rehabilitation train- ing is not entitled to reimbursement of transportation costs to and from the place of vocational training. (2) In unusual cases, the Commis- sion may allow reasonable transportation costs.1
The Legislature, clearly and unambigu-
ously, states that while an injured worker is undergoing vocational rehabilitation train- ing, transportation costs are NOT
(Continued on page 28) 1
When vocational rehabilitation provisions were first codified in the Act in 1968, there was no provision prohibiting transportation costs. It was not until 1973 that a single provision was added to the Act which ex- cluded transportation costs for injured work- ers residing at home during vocational reha- bilitation training, except in unusual cases. See § 9-674(d).
Fall 2000
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48