SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Maryland Significant Case Summary

Dennie v. Montgomery Cnty
Appellate Court of Maryland
No. 993, Sept. Term, 2024
Filed: March 2, 2026

Montgomery County was not entitled to an offset under LE § 9-610 because Claimant’s retirement benefits and workers’ compensation benefits did not cover the same injury.

Background

The Claimant was employed as a firefighter for the Employer. He was granted a service-connected partial disability retirement based on specified injuries and diseases. He later filed a workers’ compensation claim for the occupational disease of hearing loss that he sustained during his employment as a firefighter. This disease was not included in those under the service-connected partial disability retirement. The Commission found that Claimant sustained hearing loss and ordered the Employer to pay medical expenses and held for consideration whether he had sustained permanent partial disability. The Claimant later sought a permanency award for his hearing loss. The Employer requested an offset of its liability for workers’ compensation benefits under the 1999 Offset Law codified under LE § 9-610. The Commission granted the Claimant permanent partial disability benefits and denied the Employer’s offset request. The Circuit Court overruled the Commission’s denial.

Holding

Maryland law interpreting LE § 9-610 makes clear that the intent behind the statute was to “prevent double recovery … by applying an offset to any benefit that is “similar” to [a] workers’ compensation benefit also received by the employee.” The Appellate Court clarified that a similar benefit is one that accrues from the same injury or condition. The Appellate Court concluded that in this case the retirement benefit the Claimant was receiving did not cover the hearing loss for which he was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. Thus, the benefits were not for the same injury or condition, and the Employer was not entitled to offset the Claimant’s workers’ compensation benefit with his retirement benefits. The Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision and affirmed the Commission’s order denying the Employer’s offset request.

Takeaway

This case clarifies that the term “similar benefits” under LE § 9-610 requires the same underlying injury or condition. For a government employer to offset a workers’ compensation benefit by other benefits furnished to an employee, those other benefits must cover the injury or condition for which the workers’ compensation benefits are awarded. Thus, the clarification in this case limits the ability of government employers to reduce the benefits paid to an employee.

Any questions regarding this case can be addressed to Jamie L. DeSisto, Esquire at (443) 641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.