Case Title: Hundt v. Baltimore

Citation: 345 Md. 105

Docket Number: 21/96

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
MARY F. HUNDT v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
No. 21, September Term, 1996
WORKERS' COMPENSATION:  Volunteer aide having no average weekly
wage is not entitled to weekly monetary benefits for permanent
partial disability.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
                  
No. 21
                  
September Term, 1996
   _______________________________
                 
MARY F. HUNDT
                 v.
                 
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF BALTIMORE
   _______________________________
        Bell, C.J.
        Eldridge
        Rodowsky
        Chasanow
        Karwacki
        Raker
        Wilner,
                 JJ.
   _______________________________
Opinion by Wilner, J.;
Chasanow, J., concurs in
the result;
Eldridge, J., dissents
   _______________________________
        Filed:  March 13, 1997
      Prior to the finding of a permanent partial disability,
1
appellant was found to have sustained a temporary total disability.
She did not seek weekly monetary benefits for the temporary
disability, and her entitlement to such benefits is not an issue in
this appeal.
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, on summary judgment,
affirmed findings by the Workers' Compensation Commission that
(1) on September 28, 1992, while working as a volunteer school aide
for the Baltimore City School System, appellant sustained an
accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her
employment when she slipped on the cafeteria floor and injured her
left knee, (2) as a result of that injury, she suffered a permanent
partial disability, (3) pursuant to Maryland Code, § 6-107(d) of
the Education article and § 9-226(a) of the Labor and Employment
article, she was a "covered employee" under the Workers'
Compensation Law and was therefore entitled to the payment of
medical expenses arising from the injury, but (4) because, as an
unpaid volunteer, she had no average weekly wage, she was not
entitled to weekly monetary benefits.
The only issue in this appeal is whether the court was correct
in its last conclusion.   Appellant contends that, notwithstanding
1
that she had no average weekly wage, she is nonetheless entitled to
minimum benefits of $50/week pursuant to Labor and Empl. art., § 9-
626(a).  Section 9-626 provides in relevant part:
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b)
of this section, a covered employee who is
entitled to compensation under this subtitle
for a permanent partial disability shall
receive minimum weekly compensation of $50.
(b) If the covered employee has an
- 2 -
      Since 1914, in the section requiring employers to pay
2
medical benefits, the law also required them to pay part of the
funeral expenses of the employee if the employee died within a
certain period of time after the accident.  In 1968, the
Legislature added a third category of benefits — vocational
rehabilitation.  See 1968 Md. Laws, ch. 744; Labor and Empl. art.,
§§ 9-670 through 9-675.  
average weekly wage of less than $50 at the
time of the accidental personal injury . . .
the covered employee shall receive minimum
compensation that equals the average weekly
wage of the covered employee."
Appellant's argument is quite simple.  She is a covered
employee and is therefore entitled to compensation; she did not
have an average weekly wage of less than $50 and, for that reason,
her case did not fall under § 9-626(b); ergo, it falls under § 9-
626(a).
The argument, though simple to state, overlooks the context
and development of § 9-626 as well as its plain wording.
The Workers' Compensation Act has undergone many changes since
its initial enactment in 1914, but at least four features have
remained constant with respect to accidental personal injuries
arising out of and in the course of employment.  The first is the
recognition of four kinds of compensable disability that can result
from such injuries: temporary partial, temporary total, permanent
partial, and permanent total.  The second constant feature is the
provision of two principal kinds of benefits to be paid by the
employer: weekly cash benefits and medical expenses.   Third, since
2
its inception, the law has pegged weekly cash benefits for three of
- 3 -
the four disability categories — temporary total, permanent
partial, and permanent total — to the amount of "average weekly
wage" earned by the claimant at the time of the injury.  Finally,
as a fourth constant, since 1914 the law has provided a minimum
weekly benefit with respect to total disabilities, and since 1920
it has provided a minimum weekly benefit with respect to permanent
partial disability.
In the original enactment, an employee was entitled, for a
total disability, whether permanent or partial, to 50% of his or
her average weekly wage, not to exceed $12/week and an aggregate of
$5,000.  1914 Md. Laws, ch. 800, § 35.  The statute also provided
a minimum payment of $5/week "unless the employe's [sic]
established weekly wages are less than five dollars per week at the
time of the injury, in which event he shall receive compensation in
an amount equal to his average weekly wages. . . ."  Id.  In the
case of a permanent partial disability, the employee was to receive
50% of his or her average weekly wage, not to exceed $12/week and
an aggregate maximum of $3,000, in accordance with a schedule set
forth in the statute.  Unlike the situation of a total disability,
no minimum weekly payment was prescribed for a partial disability.
The provision for medical payments, stated in § 36 of the 1914
Act, was not based on average weekly wages but was for services
rendered to the employee as required by the Commission, subject to
a maximum of $150.
In 1920, the Legislature added a minimum weekly benefit
- 4 -
      The use of a State average weekly wage as an alternative cap
3
on weekly monetary benefits came about in 1968 with regard to
temporary total disability.  See 1968 Md. Laws, ch. 743.  It was
applied to permanent total disability in 1971.  See 1971 Md. Laws,
ch. 404.
provision with respect to cash payments for permanent partial
disability, similar to that included in the 1914 Act with respect
to total disabilities.  1920 Md. Laws, ch. 456.  It set the weekly
benefit at two-thirds of the average weekly wage, subject to a
maximum of $18/week and an aggregate of $3,750, with a minimum of
$8/week "unless the employee's established weekly wages are less
than eight dollars per week at the time of the injury, in which
event he shall receive compensation equal to his full wages."
Over the years, the amounts and percentages have changed, but
the basic format has not.  For a permanent total disability, a
covered employee is now entitled to weekly cash benefits in the
amount of two-thirds of his or her average weekly wage, not to
exceed the amount of the State average weekly wage or be less than
$25.   Labor and Empl. art., § 9-637.  If the employee's average
3
weekly wage is less than $25, the employer is directed to pay
benefits equal to the employee's average weekly wage.  § 9-
637(a)(2).
The amount of cash benefits payable for permanent partial
disability depends on the nature of the disability.  Section 9-627
contains a schedule establishing the number of weeks for which
- 5 -
compensation is to be paid for various kinds of injuries.  If
compensation is awarded for fewer than 75 weeks, the employee
receives benefits in the amount of one-third of his or her average
weekly wage, not to exceed $94.20.  § 9-628(d).  If compensation is
awarded for at least 75 weeks but fewer than 250 weeks, the
employee receives benefits equivalent to two-thirds of his or her
average weekly wage, but not more than one-third of the State
average weekly wage.  § 9-629.  If compensation is awarded for 250
weeks or more, the weekly benefit is in the amount of two-thirds of
the employee's average weekly wage, not to exceed 75% of the State
average weekly wage.  § 9-630.
Section 9-626, which is at issue here, applies only to
permanent partial disability.  It mirrors, however, the provision
in § 9-637(a) applicable to permanent total disability and the
provision in § 9-621(a) applicable to temporary total disability.
Compensation for permanent partial disability is set at two-thirds
of the employee's average weekly wage, with a minimum of $50 unless
the average weekly wage is less than that.  If it is, the employee
receives the full amount of his or her average weekly wage.
As to each of these categories, then, the Legislature has
crafted a scheme of paying the employee weekly cash benefits
equivalent to a percentage of the employee's average weekly wage
unless that wage falls below a minimum amount, in which case the
employee receives the full amount of his or her average weekly
wage.  The only exception to this approach is temporary partial
- 6 -
disability, for which the employee is compensated only if the
disability causes his or her wage-earning capacity to decrease, in
which event the employee receives 50% of the difference between his
or her average weekly wage and his or her wage-earning capacity
while temporarily partially disabled.  § 9-615.  No minimum benefit
is provided for that kind of disability.
The original 1914 Act covered only employees engaged in
"extra-hazardous" employment.  In § 32, it enumerated 41 specific
categories of such employment plus a catch-all of "all extra-
hazardous employments not specifically enumerated herein."  In
§ 62, the law defined "employe [sic]" as a person engaged in extra-
hazardous employment in the service of an employer conducting
business upon the premises but specifically excluded from that
definition 
farm 
laborers, 
domestic 
servants, 
blacksmiths,
wheelwrights, and other rural employees.  The law did not, in
either section, expressly include, exclude, or even mention
volunteers.  
In 1970, the Legislature combined the inclusions and
exclusions into one section — § 21 of art. 101.  Section 21(a)
dealt with employers; § 21(b) set forth the categories of employees
who were covered under the Act; and § 21(c) enumerated the
categories of employees who were "exempt" from coverage.  Although
nothing explicit was said about volunteers being covered or not
covered, § 21(b)(4) provided, among other things, that members of
volunteer fire and police departments were to be regarded as
- 7 -
employed by the political subdivision where the department was
located and "regularly enrolled volunteer member[s] or trainee[s]"
of the civil defense corps were to be regarded as employed by the
State.  1970 Md. Laws, ch. 741.  Whether that attribution actually
made them covered employees is not clear, either from the text of
the statute or from its title, although there is at least a fair
implication that, by mentioning them in § 21(b), the Legislature
intended that they be covered.
In 1971, the Legislature attempted, in yet another rewriting
of § 21, to clarify the status of those persons. Persons in the
service of political subdivisions and their agencies "under any
contract of hire," as well as elected and appointed officials, were
already included as covered employees under § 21(b).  By 1971 Md.
Laws, ch. 733, the Legislature added to the list of exempt
categories in § 21(c) members of volunteer police and fire
departments, non-salaried members of boards and commissions,
volunteer civil defense members or trainees, and "volunteer workers
for agencies or departments of political subdivisions" in 12
counties.  When coupled with what already existed in § 21(b), it
would seem that, in limiting those exemptions to the 12 listed
counties, the Legislature, at least implicitly, intended to include
as covered employees those categories of persons in Baltimore City
and the other 11 counties.
In 1972 the General Assembly first made volunteer aides
working in the public school systems covered employees.  It
- 8 -
      The Legislature intended to correct the omission apart from
4
the Code Revision bill.  It passed another bill in that session,
1991 Md. Laws, ch. 329, amending art. 21, § 21(b) to include those
volunteers but, aware of the pendency of the Labor and Employment
article containing the same provision, provided that ch. 329 would
be void if the Code Revision bill was enacted.
accomplished that result by adding a new § 112A to art. 77 of the
Code — the article then devoted to public education — authorizing
the local boards of education to use volunteer aides in school
activities and declaring those aides to be agents of the local
board for the purpose of comprehensive liability insurance coverage
"and for purposes of workman's compensation coverage under section
21 of article 101."  1972 Md. Laws, ch. 220.  At the time, it
neglected to amend art. 101, § 21(b) to include those persons but
effected their coverage solely through the amendment to art. 77.
That omission was corrected in 1991 as part of the Code Revision
Labor and Employment article.  See Labor and Empl. art., § 9-226;4
1991 Md. Laws, ch. 8.
The pegging of weekly cash benefits to the employee's average
weekly wage works without difficulty as to paid employees, for they
all have an average weekly wage in some amount to which the
appropriate formula can be applied.  When various categories of
unpaid volunteers were added as covered employees, however, the
problem we now face was created.  There is no doubt that they are
entitled to the medical benefits provided for in §§ 9-660 and 9-
661, for those benefits are available to covered employees without
regard to average weekly wage.  The question is whether the
- 9 -
Legislature intended to provide them with weekly cash benefits as
well and, if so, on what basis.
As noted, coverage for volunteer school aides came about in
1972.  The General Assembly did not record legislative history or
even retain its bill files at that time, and we are therefore
unable to determine whether any actual thought was then given to
the question.  The same lapse appears with respect to the other
categories of volunteers added as covered employees.  We may
presume that the 1972 Legislature was aware that weekly cash
payments for all but temporary partial disability benefits were
based on the employee's average weekly wage, as the section
containing those provisions (§ 36 of art. 101) was not only amended
in that same 1972 session but had been amended in each of the five
preceding sessions as well.  It may fairly be inferred, then, that,
by making no provision for weekly cash benefits for those
volunteers, the Legislature was content to have only their medical
expenses covered.
We need not rest on an inference from silence in 1972,
however.  In 1991, when the Code Revision Labor and Employment
article was presented to the Legislature, the Department of
Legislative Reference called specific attention to the gap.  In its
comment on § 9-602, defining and providing for the calculation of
an employee's average weekly wage, the Department noted:
"Proposed § 9-602 provides for the computation
of the average weekly wage of a covered
employee.  Sections 6-107 and 6-108 of the
- 10 -
Education 
Article 
provide 
workers'
compensation coverage for volunteer aides and
student teachers and interns.  However, those
sections do not provide for the average weekly
wage to be used in computing benefits.  The
General 
Assembly 
may 
wish 
to 
consider
providing an average weekly wage for volunteer
aides and student teachers and interns."
See Report On House Bill 1, Dep't of Legisl. Ref., Jan. 14, 1991,
at 39.
Notwithstanding that advice, the General Assembly chose not to
establish an average weekly wage, or method of imputing one, for
school volunteers, as it had previously done for volunteer fire and
rescue company personnel, handicapped students, and volunteer
deputy sheriffs in Cecil County.  See Labor and Empl. art., § 9-
602(d), (g), and (j).  
Section 9-626 and its counterparts in §§ 9-621 and 9-637 have
a clear and rational meaning and purpose when applied to paid
employees.  If the employee's average weekly wage is less than $50,
the employee is entitled to benefits equal to the full amount of
his or her average weekly wage.  If the employee's average weekly
wage is $50 or more, the statute assures that he or she will
receive at least $50.  Were it not for that provision, the employee
would receive only one-third or two-thirds of his or her average
weekly wage, depending on whether the benefits are to extend for
more than 75 weeks, and, in either event, that could produce an
- 11 -
      If, for example, the employee had an average weekly wage of
5
$60, but for § 9-626(a), he or she would receive benefits of only
$40 if the benefits were to extend beyond 75 weeks, and only $20 if
the benefits were for less than 75 weeks.
amount less than $50.5
The net effect and sole purpose of § 9-626(a) is to assure
than an employee having an average weekly wage of between $50 and
$75 or $150 (depending on whether the benefit is pegged at one-
third or two-thirds of his or her average weekly wage) is not
treated worse than an employee having an average weekly wage of
less than $50.  To apply it to a volunteer having no average weekly
wage would create the anomaly of an unpaid person receiving greater
benefits than a paid employee earning less than $50/week.  There is
nothing in any of the legislative history of the statute, since its
inception in 1914, suggesting such a purpose or intention by the
Legislature, and we can find no basis for giving the statute such
a strained reading.  Treating it as applicable only to employees
having an actual average weekly wage does not produce any absurd
result, as appellant contends, but is consistent with the very
rationale for providing weekly cash benefits — to compensate
employees "for loss of earning capacity resulting from accidental
injuries sustained in industrial employment."  Beth. Shipyard, Inc.
v. Damasiewicz, 187 Md. 474, 480, 50 A.2d 799, 802 (1947).  See
also Tortuga, Inc. v. Wolfensberger, 97 Md. App. 79, 83, 627 A.2d
56, 58 (citing Cox v. American Store Equip. Corp., 283 F. Supp.
390, 394 (D. Md. 1968)), cert. denied, 332 Md. 702 (1993); RICHARD
- 1 -
      In addition to traditional medical, surgical, hospital,
6
prosthetic devices, and nursing benefits provided for in § 9-660,
§9-661 requires an employer also to repair or replace an employee's
eyeglasses and prosthetic devices damaged or destroyed because of
a covered accident.  
P. GILBERT AND ROBERT L. HUMPHRIES, MARYLAND WORKERS' COMPENSATION HANDBOOK §
9.0-2 (2d ed. 1993).
It is entirely reasonable to infer that, when the Legislature
made these unpaid volunteers covered employees, it intended only
that they be eligible for non-income based benefits in the event of
on-the-job injuries.6
Judge Chasanow concurs in the result.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED;
APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Dissenting Opinion follows next page:
Eldridge, J., dissenting.
In holding that a volunteer school aide is not entitled
to weekly monetary benefits for an injury she sustained in the
course of her employment, the majority adopts an overly restrictive
view of Maryland Code (1978, 1997 Repl. Vol.), § 6-106 of the
Education Article.  Moreover, the majority's view is inconsistent
with the remedial purpose underlying the Maryland Workers'
- 2 -
Compensation Act.
Section 6-106 of the Education Article provides in per-
tinent part as follows:
"§ 6-106.  Volunteer aides.
* * *
"(d) Agents for purposes of liability insur-
ance and workers' compensation. -- A  volun-
teer aide is considered an agent of the county
board for the limited purposes of:
(1) Comprehensive liability insurance
coverage under § 4-105 of this article; and
(2) Workers' compensation coverage under
the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act."
Under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act, there are
two principal types of compensation to which employees injured out
of and in the course of their employment may be entitled -- weekly
monetary payments and medical expenses.  According to the majority,
however, the phrase "workers' compensation coverage" as it appears
in § 6-106(d)(2) of the Education Article encompasses only payments
for medical expenses.  I find no support for this position either
in the statute's language or legislative history.  Had the General
Assembly intended to restrict an injured volunteer aide's remedy
under the Workers' Compensation Act to medical expenses, it could
easily have said so.  Instead, the Legislature used the broad
phrase "[w]orkers compensation coverage under the Maryland Workers'
Compensation Act."  Given the broad scope of coverage under § 6-
106(d), it is both reasonable and more consistent with the
-3-
       Pursuant to § 9-226 of the Labor and Employment Article,
1
"[a] volunteer aide under § 6-107 of the Education Article is a
covered employee."  A "covered employee" is defined under § 9-
101(f) of the Labor and Employment Article as "an individual listed
in Subtitle 2 of this title for whom a person, a governmental unit,
or a quasi-public corporation is required by law to provide
coverage under this title."  
underlying purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act that volunteer
education aides injured in the course of their volunteer employment
should receive weekly cash payments in addition to their medical
expenses.
Subsection (d) of § 6-106 was originally enacted by
Chapter 220 of the Acts of 1972 for the purpose of "providing for
comprehensive liability insurance and workman's compensation
coverage for said [volunteer] aides."  While there is no statutory
definition of the term "coverage," the term "compensation" is both
specifically defined in the Act and has been examined in different
contexts by the Maryland courts. 
Code (1991, 1996 Supp.), § 9-101(e) of the Labor and
Employment Article, defines "compensation" as "the money payable
under this title to a covered employee or the dependents of a
covered employee," and includes "funeral benefits payable under
this title."   This definition clearly covers weekly monetary
1
payments and is not restricted to medical benefits. 
Similarly, 
Maryland 
courts 
have 
never 
adopted a
definition of "compensation" which limits its meaning to medical
expenses only.  See Vest v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 329 Md. 461,
-4-
       Former Article 101, § 36, was repealed and recodified as
2
Code (1991, 1996 Supp.), §§ 9-601 et. seq. of the Labor and
Employment Article. 
467, 620 A.2d 340, 343 (1993) ("This definition of compensation
[under § 9-101(e)] is broad and encompasses most forms of payment
to employees provided under the statute . . . ").  The Court of
Special Appeals in University of Md. v. Erie Ins., 89 Md. App. 204,
211-212, 597 A.2d 1036, 1039 (1991), discussed the meaning of the
term "compensation" as follows:
"The word `compensation' itself has more
than one meaning as used throughout the
Workers' Compensation Law. In various places
within the statute, `compensation' has the
limited meaning of the payments ordered in
accordance with the schedules in § 36  for
2
permanent total disability, temporary total
disability, or permanent or temporary partial
disability, as distinguished from various
other benefits awardable by the Commission. In
other places throughout the Workers' Compensa-
tion Law, however, the legislature used the
word `compensation' in its broad sense, refer-
ring to all benefits provided in the article,
which would include medical benefits as well
as rehabilitation." 
See Uninsured Employ. Fund v. Booker, 13 Md. App. 591, 594, 284
A.2d 454, 456 (1971) ("Examination of the entire [Workers'
Compensation] article . . . makes inescapable the conclusion that
the legislature used the word `compensation' sometimes in a limited
sense, referring to the payments called for by the schedules in
§ 36, but more frequently in a broad sense, referring to all
benefits provided in the article").  See also Holy Cross Hosp. v.
-5-
       Now § 9-736(b) of the Labor and Employment Article. 
3
Nichols, 290 Md. 149, 428 A.2d 447 (1981) (holding that medical
benefits are not "compensation" under former Article 101, § 40(c),3
which authorizes the Workers' Compensation Commission to modify a
prior award of compensation).  Thus, even in its most limited
sense, the term "compensation" would, at the very least, include
weekly monetary payments.  
Moreover, the normal broad meaning of the term "compen-
sation" is fully warranted here under the principle that the
Workers' Compensation Act should be construed "as liberally in
favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order
to effectuate its benevolent purposes."  Howard Co. Ass'n, Retard.
Cit. v. Walls, 288 Md. 526, 530, 418 A.2d 1210, 1213 (1980).  See
Vest v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., supra, 329 Md. at 467, 620 A.2d at
342; Lovellette v. City of Baltimore, 297 Md. 271, 282, 465 A.2d
1141, 1147 (1983); Ryder Truck Lines v. Kennedy, 296 Md. 528, 537,
463 A.2d 850, 856 (1983); Beth.-Sp. Pt. Shipy'd v. Hempfield, 206
Md. 589, 594, 112 A.2d 488, 491 (1955); Watson v. Grimm, 200 Md.
461, 472, 90 A.2d 180, 185 (1952); Beth.-Fair. Shipyard v. Rosen-
thal, 185 Md. 416, 425, 45 A.2d 79, 83 (1945).  See also § 9-102(a)
of the Labor and Employment Article (the Maryland Workers'
Compensation Act "shall be construed to carry out its general
purpose"). 
The fundamental purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act
-6-
is not simply to reimburse injured employees for medical expenses.
Instead, the Workers' Compensation Act "is designed to provide
workers with compensation for loss of earning capacity resulting
from accidental injury, disease or death arising out of and in the
course of employment, to provide vocational rehabilitation, and to
provide adequate medical services."  Queen v. Agger, 287 Md. 342,
343, 412 A.2d 733, 734 (1980).  See Beth. Shipyard v. Damasiewicz,
187 Md. 474, 480, 50 A.2d 799, 802 (1947) ("The general purpose of
the [Workers'] Compensation Act is to provide compensation for loss
of earning capacity resulting from accidental injuries sustained in
industrial employment").  A volunteer education aide may, as a
result of an injury in the course of voluntary school work, suffer
a loss of earning capacity affecting the aide in his or her regular
job.
Even assuming arguendo that there is a "gap" in the law,
as the majority states, as to whether the Legislature intended that
injured volunteer education aides receive weekly cash benefits, any
uncertainty in the Act should be construed in favor of the
claimant. Baltimore v. Cassidy, 338 Md. 88, 97, 656 A.2d 757, 761-
762 (1995); R & T Construction Co. v. Judge, 323 Md. 514, 529, 594
A.2d 99, 107 (1991); Victor v. Proctor & Gamble, 318 Md. 624, 629,
569 A.2d 697, 700 (1990); Trotta v. Country Car Center, 292 Md.
660, 663, 441 A.2d 343, 344 (1982); Howard Co. Ass'n, Retard. Cit.
v. Walls, supra, 288 Md. at 530, 418 A.2d at 1213; Barnes v. Ezrine
-7-
Tire Co., 249 Md. 557, 561, 241 A.2d 392, 395 (1968).    
Section 9-625 of the Labor and Employment Article
provides further support for affording injured volunteer education
aides weekly monetary payments under the Workers' Compensation Act.
Part IV of the Act applies to those employees, including the
volunteer employee in this case, who have sustained a permanent
partial disability.   Specifically, the scope of Part IV is set
forth in § 9-625 as follows: 
"§ 9-625. Scope of part.
A covered employee who is permanently
partially disabled due to an accidental per-
sonal injury or an occupational disease shall
be paid compensation in accordance with this
Part IV of this subtitle." 
Part IX, and not Part IV, provides for the payment of medical
expenses to injured employees. The only benefits payable to an
injured employee under Part IV are specifically provided for in
§ 9-626, which states as follows: 
"§ 9-626. Minimum compensation. 
(a) In general. -- Except as provided in
subsection (b) of this section, a covered
employee who is entitled to compensation under
this subtitle for a permanent partial dis-
ability shall receive minimum weekly compensa-
tion of $50.
(b) Covered employee with average weekly
wage less than $50. -- If the covered employee
has an average weekly wage of less than $50 at
the time of the accidental personal injury or
the last injurious exposure to the hazards of
the occupational disease, the covered employee
shall receive minimum compensation that equals
the average weekly wage of the covered
-8-
employee."  
As provided in § 9-625, a covered employee aide who suffers a
permanent partial disability in the course of her employment shall
be compensated in accordance with Part IV of the Workers' Compensa-
tion Act.  It follows that, as a covered employee, a volunteer aide
who does not have an "average weekly wage" is nonetheless entitled
to minimum weekly compensation of $50 under § 9-626(a).
In support of its holding, the majority relies upon the
General Assembly's decision in 1991 not to adopt the recommendation
of the Department of Legislative Reference to create an average
weekly wage for volunteer aides. In my opinion, this recommendation
was at best ambiguous as to whether it actually informed the
Legislature that volunteer aides would otherwise be limited in
their recovery to reimbursement for medical expenses. It seems to
me equally as likely that the General Assembly found it unnecessary
to create an average weekly wage for such volunteers in light of
the language of § 6-106(d) of the Education Article and § 9-626 of
the Labor and Employment Article.  I simply cannot adopt the
majority's position that inaction by the Legislature, as to one
recommendation included within a 52 page report, restricts the
language of § 6-106(d) of the Education Article.    
For the above reasons, I would reverse the judgment of
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.