The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed the decision of a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) and ruled that former Pittsburgh Steelers player Ainsley T. Battles is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because the injury he suffered did not result in “a compensable loss of earnings.”
Battles signed a one-year contract with the Steelers for the 2004-2005 season. However, his season ended abruptly in the first game when he tore his left hamstring. Team physician, Dr. James Bradley, performed surgery three days later and Battles underwent a lengthy period of rehabilitation from 2004 into the summer of 2005.
The Steelers did not re-sign Battles. However, the team permitted him to continue his rehabilitation and provided a $50,000 severance payment. Battles, ultimately, was medically cleared to play in the NFL on August 20, 2005. But he was unable to secure a position with the Steelers or any other team. Battles retired from football in 2006. Since then, he worked briefly as a personal trainer and a medical device salesman. Battles currently teaches social studies and coaches high school football and track in Georgia.
In 2007, Battles filed a claim for total disability benefits from September 2004 to January 2007 and partial disability benefits thereafter based on his argument that the hamstring injury adversely affected his ability to play professional football. In short, he “believes that his ability to ‘run, change direction, tackle … stop the ball carrier or use my legs to throw blocks or cover the offense’ has been diminished to the point where no team will hire him,” wrote the court. As evidence of his diminished physical ability, he cited a reduced 40-yard dash time, an inability to find work with the Arena Football League, and a medical opinion from his physician that “at extremes,” Battles’ leg would not perform as well as it would have pre-injury.
The Steelers opposed the claim and presented the testimony of Dr. James Bradley, the employer’s head orthopedic surgeon for the past 19 years. He opined that he surgically repaired Battles’ leg, that the rehabilitation progressed normally, and that he had cleared Battles to physically play in the NFL without restrictions. The Steelers also presented the testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Kann, who suggested the claimant had “superb results” from his surgery, was fit to play in the NFL, and had only complaints that his surgically-repaired leg fatigued more easily than his right. Lastly, the Steelers offered Kevin Colbert, the Steelers Director of Football Operations, who testified that Battles’ contract was not renewed because the Steelers had three other options at defensive back and had found a “better player” in Tyrone Carter. He further claimed that they did not look solely to claimant’s speed in the 40-yard dash in determining whether a spot on the team would be granted. Colbert also testified that the Steelers had paid for all necessary medical treatment and paid Battles his contractually owed $205,000 for the 2004-2005 season.
The WCJ found that the Steelers essentially accepted a medical-only claim by recognizing the claimant’s work injury and paying all medical expenses associated with it. Further, it had paid the claimant the amount of salary owed under his one-season contract. This left the issue about the extent of the claimant’s disability and whether the claimant could play professional football. The WCJ relied on the medical opinions of Dr. Bradley and Dr. Kann, “and found that after surgery and rehabilitation, the claimant had regained his physical ability to play professional football. The WCJ noted that the claimant’s own testimony that he tried out for the Nashville Kats showed that he considered himself capable of playing professional football.” The WCJ credited the testimony of Colbert that the claimant lost his spot because the Steelers “had acquired a better player in Carter, not because of the claimant’s injury and physical condition.”
Battles appealed and the board affirmed, leading to the instant opinion.
The appeals court held that the claimant “failed to prove that his work injury resulted in disability, i.e., a loss of earnings. It is undisputed that he missed the 2004-2005 football season because of his work injury. Further, while the claimant was undergoing rehabilitation, he was not cleared to play professional football. However, he had no loss of earnings during this period because the employer paid the claimant what he was contractually entitled to receive for the 2004-2005 season.”
The appeals court noted that once he completed his rehabilitation, he could have resumed his career. Battles “focuses on his own perceived decline in performance, such as his slower 40-yard dash times, and the fact that no other team signed him. However, Colbert credibly testified that hiss 40-yard dash times were irrelevant to the decision not to re-sign the claimant. Rather, the employer had signed Carter, who was considered an overall better player. The claimant’s injury did not factor into the decision. In fact, the employer would have considered re-signing the claimant if Carter had signed with a different team. Nor did the claimant present evidence that his speed was a factor in the decision of other teams not to sign him. The Nashville Kats did not time claimant during his tryout.”
Ainsley T. Battles v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.), Common. Ct. Pa.; No. 225 C.D. 2013, 2013 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 677; 8/29/13
