Opinion ID: 6215893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The TravCo Case

Text: Nearly a decade ago, in a case that also arose from an automobile accident and that also resulted in a workers’ compensation claim by the injured person,27 the federal district court certified a somewhat similar question to this Court. TravCo Ins. Co. v. Williams, 430 Md. 396 (2013). In TravCo, the federal court asked three questions concerning the operation of IN §19-513(e). The third of those questions was “whether, assuming that the law applicable to the underlying automobile accident and to the [workers’ compensation] claim treats ‘write-downs’ of medical bills as [workers’ compensation] benefits, such ‘write-downs’ would reduce benefits payable under §19-513(e) of the Insurance Article.” 430 Md. at 412. in the UIM action will be offset by the full amount paid by the WC insurer in unreimbursed medical benefits. 27 In TravCo, the facts were essentially identical to this case except that the injured person was an employee of the District of Columbia government and the applicable workers’ compensation benefits were determined by the law of the District of Columbia. In that case, the employee was riding in a car on a work assignment when the car was rearended by an unknown driver. She suffered various injuries and recovered workers’ compensation benefits from her employer, including the payment of medical expenses. According to the facts certified by the federal district court, her health care providers had applied “write-downs” with respect to those medical expenses. The injured employee was covered by a Maryland motor vehicle insurance policy issued by TravCo and made a claim under that policy for UM benefits. The administrator of workers’ compensation benefits for the District of Columbia asserted a subrogation right – presumably under the workers’ compensation law of the District – against any UM benefits recovered by the employee. TravCo conceded that the injured employee was entitled to UM benefits under the policy, but the parties disagreed as to whether the “writedowns” should be included as part of the offset against UM benefits under IN §19-513(e). 21 In answering that question, this Court assumed that the applicable workers’ compensation law treated “write-downs” as “benefits,” that the claimant received such benefits, and that the WC insurer had not been reimbursed for those benefits. 430 Md. at 412. In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the offset under IN §19-513(e) would include the amount of the “write-downs.” Id. Because the workers’ compensation claim in TravCo was governed by the law of the District of Columbia, not the law of Maryland, this Court essentially answered the certified question of law with another question of law – are “write-downs” benefits under the workers’ compensation law of the District of Columbia? And that was a question that this Court could not answer in the context of a certified question of Maryland law. The question posed in TravCo thus differs from the question in this case in two respects. First, the question posed in TravCo assumed that the difference between a medical bill and the amount paid under a workers’ compensation law – what was referred to as a “write-down” – could be a benefit under the applicable workers’ compensation law. By contrast, that is the essence of the question in this case. Second, the issue in that case ultimately turned on whether the law of the District of Columbia recognized a “writedown” as a benefit under its workers’ compensation law. By contrast, in this case, Maryland law governs Mr. Gilliam’s workers’ compensation claim and we do not assume that a “write down” – however defined – necessarily has any standing as a benefit under that law. The question posed by the federal district court in this case is resolved solely by reference to Maryland law – in particular, IN §19-513(e). 22