By Steven Stamps
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit has reversed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an injured NFL player. The court ruled that the player, Jamaal Branch was clearly not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits since the benefits would have been more compensation than Branch would have received without an injury.
Branch, a member of the New Orleans Saints, fractured his right fibula on December 23, 2007 in the second to last game of the season. Branch was on the injured reserve list for the final game of the season and was paid his entire 2007 salary according to his contract. Branch was cleared to return to “full football activity without restrictions” on March 17, 2008 in time for voluntary spring workouts. The spring workouts in mid to late March are not mandatory but the players are paid for their participation. Branch participated in the workouts and was paid by the team until he was released in May 2008.
Branch’s standard NFL Player Contract was signed on December 10, 2007 and ran for two seasons, ending on February 28 or 29, 2009 unless extended, terminated, or renewed. Branch and Laura Russette, the Human Resources Coordinator for the Saints, both testified at trial that Branch was a “year round” employee of the Saints and that his contract did not provide for any pay between the end of the 2007 regular season and the beginning of the March 2008 voluntary workouts. Both sides also testified that Branch would not have been paid during that time period had he not been injured. The workers’ compensation judge ruled that Branch was entitled to weekly temporary total disability benefits of $522 from December 23, 2007 through March 17, 2008. The Saints appealed the award of workers’ compensation benefits and Branch appealed asking for attorney fees and penalties.
On appeal, the Saints argued that the workers’ compensation judge erred in awarding benefits because Branch was not entitled to them because he did not miss any voluntary workouts or other work and did not suffer any wage loss. Additionally, the team argued that there should not have been an award of benefits because no players were paid salary under their contracts during that time and that benefits are not owed simply because an employee suffers an injury. Branch responded that he was entitled to benefits because he was not able to work and did not receive any pay from the Saints.
In Louisiana, a workers’ compensation claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the time that he is employed. Additionally, a claimant seeking temporary disability benefits must offer clear and convincing evidence that he is unable to engage in any type of employment or self-employment due to his injury. The court ruled that Branch had not proven that he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits. Branch did sustain a work related injury, but he remained employed by the Saints and was paid the same salary that he would have received had he not been injured. Judge Rothschild summed up his opinion writing that the purpose of workers’ compensation is to compensate an employee for lost wages when there is a work related injury and that Branch is clearly not entitled to benefits because the benefits would have been more compensation than he would have earned without any injury.
