Numerous stories have recently been written about former professional football player’s health problems and lack of disability coverage later in life. While some players seek monetary help from players’ union and former teams, Chad Hennings sought reparation in the form of workers’ compensation.
However, the 10th Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, recently denied the former Dallas Cowboys defensive lineman’s claim for workers’ comp in a majority decision, holding “that a professional athlete who accepts the benefits available under his contract or collective bargaining agreement cannot recover under [the Texas workers’] compensation law.”
Hennings, who has three Super Bowl rings from his nine-year career, suffered a spine injury in October 2000. The Cowboys terminated Hennings’ contract in March 2001, wherein he retired from the NFL in June of that year. Hennings reportedly made approximately $1.4 million in salary and benefits during his final season
As part of that $1.4 million, Hennings received $225,000 under an “injury-protection clause” in the NFL collective bargaining agreement, $38,921.98 from the Cowboys to cover Hennings’ medical costs and $87,500 in severance pay.
In its decision, the 10th Court of Appeals cited Texas Labor Code §406.095, which requires injured professional athletes to either choose the benefits available under their contracts or the workers’ comp system, if the player “is entitled to benefits for medical care and weekly benefits that are equal to or greater than the benefits provided under this subtitle.”
However, Hennings argued that he was not required to make such an election, “because the medical benefits provided by his contract were not equal to or greater than the lifetime medical benefits provided under the Act” in that they ended when the Cowboys terminated his contract, according to the opinion.
Hennings, who prevailed before an administrative hearing examiner and an appeals panel after filing a claim in 2003 with the workers’ compensation division of the Texas Department of Insurance seeking lifetime medical benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was also found to be entitled lifetime workers’ comp benefits by a Denton County Jury.
Defendant Gulf Insurance argued “the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in determining that Hennings was eligible to receive the benefits under his contract and those provided by the Act” since Hennings chose, by default, the benefits provided by his contract.
The appeals court agreed with Gulf Insurance. “When the athlete fails to make an election he is presumed to have elected the option for medical and weekly [contractual] benefits, which provides the highest benefits,” wrote Justice Bill Vance, who was joined by Justice Felipe Reyna.
Siding with Hennings, 10th Court Chief Justice Tom Gray dissented, stating that the majority ignored the language of §406.095.
“An election by the player is only necessary if the benefits under the player’s contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement equal or exceed the benefits under the [Texas Workers’ Compensation] Act,” Gray wrote. “By definitions adopted under the commission’s regulations, the benefits do not equal or exceed the benefits of the Act if they are limited or terminated in any way by the contract or Collective Bargaining Agreement. Hennings’ contract benefits are so limited. Therefore, by definition he was not even put to an election.”
Hennings sought workers’ compensation benefits in case his neck worsens and he needs more surgery, according to John E. Collins, a partner in the Dallas firm Burleson, Pate & Gibson, which represents Hennings.
