Case Title: Conti v. Dept. of Labor

Citation: 356 Md. 459

Docket Number: 20/99

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 97280020/CC6659
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 20
September Term, 1999
______________________________________
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
LICENSING AND REGULATION
v.
BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING
AND REGULATION, et al.
______________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Karwacki (retired, specially assigned),
   JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed:    November 10, 1999
This appeal involves a dispute between the Board of Appeals of the Department of
Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, a unit within that department, and the Secretary of the
department.
Following an audit, the Secretary, in accordance with Maryland Code, § 8-602(a) of
the Labor and Employment Article, determined that certain sales agents of America’s Energy
Savers Home Improvement, Inc. were covered employees for purposes of the Unemployment
Insurance Law rather than independent contractors.  The company appealed that decision to
the Board of Appeals, which held that the sales agents were independent contractors and thus
reversed the decision of the Secretary.  The Secretary, who is responsible for assessing and
collecting contributions by employers to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, was a statutory
party to the proceeding before the board. § 8-602(c).  Aggrieved by the board’s decision, the
Secretary sought judicial review of it in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  Upon the
board’s motion, the court dismissed the Secretary’s petition, holding that the Secretary had
no standing to seek judicial review.  The Secretary appealed that judgment to the Court of
Special Appeals, and, on our own initiative, we granted certiorari to consider what we
thought was an important public issue.
As it turns out, the issue that we thought was important is not only not important but
it is not even necessary to address it in this case.  By 1998 Maryland Laws, chapter 499, the
General Assembly amended § 8-512 of the Labor and Employment Article to make clear the
Secretary’s right to seek judicial review of a board decision.  The board concedes the power
of the Secretary to seek judicial review of its decisions from and after June 1, 1998 — the
-2-
effective date of chapter 499 — but it continues to argue that he had no such authority in this
case.
The board is wrong.  Although the Secretary’s petition for judicial review was filed
in October, 1997, the judgment of the court dismissing the petition for lack of standing was
not filed until June 30, 1998, by which time the new law had taken effect.  When the court
dismissed the petition, therefore, the Secretary clearly and undisputedly had standing to seek
judicial review.  As any lack of standing on the part of the Secretary would have been
procedural only, and as such lack, if there was one, was cured by the amendment while the
petition was still pending before the court, the judgment was in error.  Starfish Condo. v.
Yorkridge Serv., 295 Md. 693, 704-09, 458 A.2d 805, 810-13 (1985); Richardson v.
Richardson, 217 Md. 316, 142 A.2d 550 (1958).  Accordingly, we shall vacate the judgment
of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings on the Secretary’s petition.
JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED
TO CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; COSTS TO
BE PAID BY APPELLEE.