Source: https://www.warnkenlaw.com/law/workers-compensation/hypertension-and-police-officers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:41:53+00:00

Document:
By: Rebecca L. Smith, Esq.
A compensable occupational disease requires that the claimant satisfy two tests. First, the claimant must satisfy an objective test requiring the claimant to show either that (1) the disease is an occupational disease, due to the nature of the employment in which the hazards of the disease actually exist, or (2) the disease and its manifestations are consistent with those known to result from a given physical, chemical, or biological agent attributable to the employment. Second, the claimant must prove disablement.
Due to the presumption, most employers do not contest that the hypertension is work-related, unless there is clearly another cause for the illness. For example, if a Maryland State Trooper files a workers’ compensation claim for hypertension after he/she has been charged with violating a provision of the Administrative Manual, or after a significant family event not related to the employment, or a financial hardship, the insurance company may be more inclined to question whether the hypertension is the result of the employment or the stress of other major life events.
What is often unclear for Maryland State Troopers who file a hypertension workers’ compensation claim is whether that occupational disease has caused disablement. The Workers’ Compensation Act defines disablement as the event of a covered employee becoming partially or totally incapacitated.[ix] Incapacity may take on four main forms: (1) temporary partial incapacitation; (2) temporary total incapacitation; (3) permanent partial incapacitation; or (4) permanent total incapacitation.[x] The incapacitation must be related to the employee’s ability to perform whatever work that employee was engaged in last.[xi] Although the definition of incapacity seems clear, and, in fact, in the context of an accidental injury it would be entirely clear, the Workers’ Compensation Commission has yet to outline a precise rubric for determining disablement for police officers suffering from hypertension. Most insurance companies will argue that if a Maryland State Trooper does not miss time from work, he/she is not incapacitated and thus, there is no disablement.
For instance, in Helinski v. C & P Tel. Co., the Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that “an incapacity to work in one set of conditions applicable to a particular job does not necessarily indicate or equate with incapacity to perform the work in an occupation. Whether a disablement suffices to be occupational in scope would depend, at least in part, upon how the occupation is defined and how much of the range of activity fairly included within the occupation is in fact foreclosed to the claimant. If, indeed, the claimant is able to continue to perform reasonably analogous work within the same occupational classification at the same or higher wages, he is not incapacitated from performing his work in the last occupation.” Thus, according to Helinski, a Maryland State Trooper who suffers from hypertension may not be disabled if he/she can continue to perform his/her duties for the same or higher wages, regardless of whether he/she cannot do all of the same duties for that specific assignment.
Maryland courts have also determined that an employee is not incapacitated within the intent of the law if, although injured, the employee has the capacity and ability to perform his/her regular work, and actually continues to perform his/her regular work for which he/she is employed.[xii] For example, a Trooper who claims that he/she suffers from an occupational disease but, despite that disease, continues to work under the same conditions, may not be disabled as defined by statute. In order to prove disablement, the Trooper would have to be unable to perform the required functions of his/her assignment and, in fact, stop performing his/her regular work.
Miller also cautioned that strict adherence to a “wage loss requirement” to determine whether an employee is actually incapacitated may lead to absurd results. Specifically, it may deprive a physically-disabled worker of a workers’ compensation award, which essentially penalizes the workers’ laudable efforts to keep working. Furthermore, such a requirement would promote the fiction that a worker, simply because of his/her level of earnings, is not suffering from permanent partial disability.
In order to be successful in a workers’ compensation claim for hypertension, Troopers must be able to prove that they are disabled. If the Trooper is feeling symptomatic at work, he/she should handle the matter quickly. In a typical, successful workers’ compensation claim for hypertension, a Trooper who begins to experience symptoms associated with hypertension would see a physician immediately, regardless of whether that Trooper is mid-shift or about to start a shift. If the Trooper actively seeks medical treatment for any symptoms and that those symptoms are affecting the Trooper’s ability to perform his/her duties, it is much easier to convince the employer that the Trooper is disabled within the meaning of the statute. In addition, seeing a physician when the Trooper is symptomatic, the medical records asst in documenting the issues and it supports a claim of factual disability. If a Trooper misses work because of hypertension, the Trooper would, if possible, see a physician that same day and should ensure that the necessary forms are completed for the Maryland State Police in a timely fashion. The forms should clearly reflect the cause of taking sick leave.
It is an open question as to whether a Trooper who suffers from hypertension, who does not miss time from work, but who cannot complete all of the essential functions of a Trooper, is disabled. If a Trooper is able to perform all of the essential functions of a Trooper, but does not perform those duties as well as he/she would have absent hypertension symptoms, the Trooper may be disabled. Additionally, a Trooper who is no longer able to run long distances due to hypertension and shortness of breath may not be deemed to be disabled if the Trooper is able to perform all other duties. The simplest way to prove disablement is when the Trooper sought medical attention immediately after experiencing symptoms, he/she missed work because of those symptoms and/or treatment, and once the Trooper returns to work, they cannot perform the duties as well as before the hypertension.
Although Troopers enjoy a presumption that hypertension is work-related under workers’ compensation law, Troopers must also prove that the hypertension has caused disablement. Disablement is not simply feeling ill and pushing through the day until the Trooper can treat the symptoms at home. Disablement means that a Trooper who suffers from hypertension cannot continue to perform his/her duties for the same or higher wages, regardless of whether he/she cannot do all of the same duties for that specific assignment.
Troopers should keep in mind that the purpose of workers’ compensation is to ensure that the injured employee receives necessary medical care and to compensate those injured workers who suffer from any permanent disabling effects of injury. If a Trooper begins to have symptoms associated with hypertension, and those symptoms are affecting his/her ability to perform his/her duties, he/she should see a doctor immediately and complete the necessary Maryland State Police forms associated with any illness.
[i] City of Frederick v. Shankle, 367 Md. 5, 8 (2001).
[ii] Md. Code Ann, Lab. & Empl. § 9-503(b)(1).
[iii] Montgomery County v. Pirrone, 109 Md. App. 201 (1996).
[viii] Montgomery Co. Fire Bd. V. Fisher, 298 Md. 245, 257 (1983).
[ix] Md. Code Ann, Lab. & Empl. § 9-501(a).
[x] Md. Code Ann, Lab. & Empl. §9-101(g). See also Helinski v. C & P Tel. Co., 108 Md. App. 461, 472 (1996).
[xi] Helinski, 108 Md. App. at 470.
[xii] Smith v. Howard County, 177 Md. App. 327, 336 (2007) (citing Belschner v. Anchor Post Productions, Inc., 227 Md. 89, 93 (1961)).
[xiii] Miller v. Western Elec. Co., 310 Md. 173 (1987).
[xv] The Trooper’s failure to notify the Maryland State Police within one year of the employee knows or has reason to know that the hypertension is work-related bars a claim for compensation unless the Commission excuses the failure on the ground that notice, for some sufficient reason, could not have been given, or that the employer or insurer suffered no prejudice from the lack of notice. Md. Code Ann, Lab. & Empl. §§ 9-404(d), 9-705(b), 9-706(a).
[xvi] Md. Code Ann, Lab. & Empl. § 9-711.
[xviii] Montgomery County v. Pirrone, 190 Md. App. 201, 210 (1996).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 V. 
 § 9
 §9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v.