By Bryan T. Symes, Esq.
Box Score
On July 8, 2010, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals blew the whistle on a nearly decade-long clash between former NHL player Jamie Huscroft and the Washington Capitals, arising out of Huscroft’s claim for benefits under the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”).1 Much like Huscroft’s professional hockey career, the significance of the Court’s opinion deserves special attention.
The Huscroft opinion is particularly noteworthy because the Court accepted Huscroft’s position that his career-ending injury—sustained while he played for the Capitals’s Maine-based minor league affiliate—was compensable under the WCA because his employment was “localized principally in the District of Columbia.”
The Court agreed that Huscroft’s time spent playing for the Portland Pirates, while outside of the District of Columbia, was “the functional equivalent of preparatory practice for NHL games.” In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied primarily on a similar case involving fourteen former Washington Redskins players.2
Pre-Game Warm Up
Following several successful stints in the NHL, the Capitals signed Huscroft in 1999 to a two-year, “two-way” contract, under which it could assign him to play for the Capitals in the NHL, or its minor league affiliate, the Portland Pirates of the AHL.3
On October 13, 2000, Huscroft, who some have described as one of “the toughest blue liners in the entire Western Hockey League when he was drafted,”4 sustained a career-ending head injury during a game in which he played for the Portland Pirates while in Quebec, Canada.5 During the preceding hockey season, Huscroft played thirty to forty games for the Pirates and in seven games for the Capitals.
After the 2000-2001 hockey campaign—at which time Huscroft’s contract expired—he filed a claim for benefits under the WCA. Following years of administrative atrophy, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an order in September 2007, awarding Huscroft benefits under the WCA. The Capitals successfully petitioned the District of Columbia’s Compensation Review Board, which reversed the ALJ on the ground that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s finding that Huscroft’s claim came within the jurisdiction of the WCA.
More specifically, the Compensation Review Board concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to support Huscroft’s nexus with the District of Columbia at the time of his injury in October 2000. The Compensation Review Board remanded to the ALJ to determine if Huscroft’s employment “constitutes a set of substantial and legitimate contacts with the District more significant here than elsewhere.” In other words, pursuant to the WCA, Huscroft was required to demonstrate that his employment was, “at the time of injury,” “localized principally in the District of Columbia.”6
On remand, the ALJ again concluded that Huscroft’s injury fell within the purview of the WCA, opining that the Capitals’s principal business was playing professional hockey games; that the Capitals’s arena was located within the District of Columbia; that the Capitals principally hired Huscroft to play in NHL games; and that Huscroft’s participation in AHL games for the Pirates was merely “ancillary to preparing for NHL games.” The Compensation Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s jurisdictional decision, and the Capitals appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Officials’ Review
Not surprisingly, because Huscroft sustained his injury while he played for the Pirates, the Court identified the key issue as whether his employment at the time of his injury “was localized principally in the District of Columbia,” such that coverage under the WCA was triggered. In that regard, the Court reiterated the following factors used to determine if Huscroft’s employment was localized principally in the District of Columbia:
The place(s) of the employee’s business office(s) or facility(ies) at which or from which the employee performs the principal service(s) for which he was hired; or
If there is no such office or facility at which the employee works, the employee’s residence, the place where the contract is made and the place of performance; or
If neither (1) nor (2) is applicable, the employee’s base of operations.
Moreover, the Court opined, “employment principally localized in the District means a claimant’s employment relationship with this jurisdiction must have contacts more substantial here than in any other place.” In analyzing Huscroft’s nexus to the District of Columbia, the Court relied on an analogous case involving the Washington Redskins.7
In that case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that fourteen former Redskins players, each of whom applied for benefits based on football-related injuries, fell within the purview of the WCA. This, despite the fact that the amount of time the former Redskins players spent at the Redskins practice facility in Virginia “substantially exceeded” the amount of time the same players spent at NFL games in the District at RFK Stadium. The Court concluded that the players’ injuries triggered the jurisdiction of the WCA because “the principal service for which the players were hired was to play in regularly scheduled NFL football games,” and “a professional athlete’s practice [in Virginia] is merely preparatory to the game.”
In the Huscroft case, the Court similarly held—despite the fact that Huscroft was not playing for the Capitals at the time of his injury—that the principal duty for which the Capitals hired Huscroft was to play in NHL games for the Capitals. Significantly, the Court affirmed the ALJ’s decision that even though Huscroft spent more time in Portland, Maine [with the minor league Pirates club] than he did in the District [playing for the Capitals], his activities were “ancillary to preparing for NHL games.” According to the Court, the correctness of this decision is supported by the testimony of the Capitals Assistant General Manager, who explained that the AHL is “primarily a development league for the NHL.”
In further support of its decision that Huscroft’s claim was within the jurisdiction of the WCA, the Court explained that even when Huscroft was playing for the Pirates, the Capitals maintained complete control over his activities. Indeed, Huscroft’s paycheck came directly from the Capitals, the Capitals could call him up to the NHL at any time, at its discretion, and the Capitals controlled the Pirates’ on-ice hockey operations, including the full roster, coaches and trainers. According to the Court, these facts demonstrate that Huscroft’s employment relationship had “contacts more substantial here [in the District of Columbia] than in any other place.”
Despite the fact that Huscroft, unlike the Washington Redskins players, played for the Capitals’s minor league affiliate at the time of his injury, the Court concluded that the evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Huscroft’s “participation in AHL games served as the functional equivalent of preparatory practice for NHL games.”
Post-Game Wrap Up
Although the Huscroft opinion is noteworthy in terms of its implications for professional athletes who play for teams located within or connected to the District of Columbia [with similar contractual relationships], the broader significance of the opinion will be measured in terms of its persuasive utility in other jurisdictions. To that end, advocates across the country will undoubtedly build upon the Court’s underlying reasoning—that an athlete’s participation in practices and games for a minor league club (or within a developmental league) is mere preparation for games at the major-league level.
Attorneys of Record: (for Huscroft/Intervenor) Benjamin T. Boscolo, ChasenBoscolo, Greenbelt, MD; (for District of Columbia Department of Employment Services/Respondent) Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia; Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General; Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, and David A. Hyden, Assistant Attorney General; (for Lincoln Hockey, LLC, et al./Petitioners) Stewart S. Manela, Arent Fox, LLP, D.C.
Bryan T. Symes is an attorney with Minneapolis-based Seaton, Beck & Peters, P.A. Mr. Symes is licensed to practice—and actively represents management-side clients in employment and labor matters in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. He may be reached at (952) 896-1700 or bsymes@seatonlaw.com.
Note: The information provided in this article is does not constitute, nor is it intended to constitute, legal advice. You should not rely upon the information herein, but should consult an attorney in your own jurisdiction about your own specific situation.
1 Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. Dist. of Columbia Dept. of Empl. Servs. and Jamie Huscroft, No. 08-AA-1476, — A.2d —, 2010 WL 2679355 (D.C. July 8, 2010). See also WCA, D.C. Code § 32-1501 et seq.
2 See Pro-Football, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia Dept. of Empl. Servs. 588 A.2d 275 (D.C. 1991).
3 The Washington Capitals play their home games in the District of Columbia, whereas the Pirates play their home games in Portland, Maine. See Lincoln Hockey, LLC, No. 08-AA-1476, — A.2d —, 2010 WL 2679355 at *1.
4 Available online, last accessed on August 4, 2010. According to Huscroft’s player profile, he “cemented” his reputation as one of the toughest players in the league “when he managed to pile up 318 minutes in penalties during his first season as a professional.”
5 According to the District of Columbia Department of Employment, Labor Standards Bureau’s Compensation Order on Remand, on October 13, 2000, Huscroft “took a hard body check and was involved in a fight” and “following these events he experienced difficulty with concentration, memory, headaches and following conversation.”
6 See Lincoln Hockey, LLC, No. 08-AA-1476, — A.2d —, 2010 WL 2679355 at *1 (citing, D.C. Code § 32-1503(a)(2)).
7 See note 2, above.
