Blevins v. Baltimore County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, under L.E. § 9-610(a), 4 an offset of benefits was not called for where workers’ compensation award was for a period prior to when retirement benefits became payable
• concluding that L.E. § 9-610 does not permit set-off of disability retirement benefits against compensation awarded for the period prior to local government employee’s retirement, and does not permit set-off of ordinary service-based retirement benefits to local government employee
• stating that the employer “is not entitled to set off Wills’s retirement benefits against her workers’ compensation benefits”
• noting that pursuant to our holding in Newman, “the only benefits that a county was entitled to set off against a workers’ compensation award were those that were similar to the compensation benefits—those which, if not set off, would permit a double recovery for the same injury”
• “[T]he principal function of code revision ‘is to reorganize the statutes and state them in simpler form,’ and thus ‘changes are presumed to be for the purpose of clarity rather than for a change in meaning”’ (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).