By Steven Stamps
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has upheld a Court of Special Appeals decision that a Washington Redskins football player was a “covered employee” and was entitled to protection under Maryland’s workers’ compensation laws. The court held that Darnerien McCants was a “covered employee” and was entitled to Maryland workers’ compensation even when he was injured while practicing and playing football outside of Maryland.
McCants was drafted by the Redskins in 2001. From 2002 to 2004, McCants played in 34 NFL games as a wide receiver for the Redskins. Eighteen of the 34 games were played in Maryland. The Redskins play ten games (two preseason and eight regular season) annually at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. The team’s remaining games are played at other stadiums around the country. The Redskins are based in Ashburn, Virginia and their practice facility is also located in Ashburn.
On April 18, 2007, McCants filed six separate workers’ compensation claims with the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission (the Commission). The claims were for different injuries sustained during McCants’ career with the Redskins. McCants claimed a neck injury during a game in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, right ankle, left shoulder, and right shoulder injuries during a game in Buffalo, New York, a left shoulder injury while playing in a game at FedEx Field, and a right knee and right ankle injury during practice in Ashburn, Virginia.
The Redskins disputed the claims and argued that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the five out-of-state claims. The Commission determined that McCants was not a “covered employee” and dismissed the out-of-state claims for a lack of jurisdiction. Section 9-203(a)(2) of the Maryland workers’ compensation act says that an individual qualifies as a “covered employee” when working for an employer “outside of this State on a casual, incidental, or occasional basis if the employer regularly
employs the individual within this State.”
The claim proceeded to Circuit Court where McCants took the position that he was employed by the Redskins “to play NFL games,” primarily at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. He further argued that practice time in Virginia was “preparatory to performing in those NFL games” and “incidental” to his work. McCants also stated that the games played outside of Maryland were merely occasional within the meaning of Section 9-203(a)(2). The Redskins responded that the majority of McCants’ job took place in Virginia. They argued that McCants’ employment consisted primarily of practice
and preparatory activities, including weight-training and “viewing of films,” all of which took place in Virginia.
The Circuit Court agreed with the Redskins based on the substantial time spent in Virginia. It noted that the required presences in Maryland were “eight times a year” while he was required to be in Virginia “several hundred days a year.” McCants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which reversed, determining that the time in Virginia was spent on practicing for football games and “practicing is incidental to the main purpose of [the] employment: to play in football games.”
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in favor of McCants. It based its opinion, in part, on Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa, 197 Md. App. 463, 14 A.3d 678 (2011), a separate case involving another Redskins player. Thomas Tupa sought Maryland workers’ compensation benefits after injuring himself during pregame warm-ups at FedEx Field.
In ruling for McCants, the Court of Appeals wrote, “The purpose of a football player’s employment with a professional football team is to play in professional football games. It is not, as Petitioner [The Redskins] seemingly contends, to practice. Football practice is a means to an end – better performance in football games – it is not an end unto itself. Put another way, professional football organizations do not sign ‘skilled football players’ so those players can lift weights and watch game film. The players are signed, and required to attend practice in Virginia, so they can perform well in games to achieve wins and earn revenue for the team. The nature of a football player’s employment, then, is defined by the games in which he participates, not the admittedly important, yet nonetheless ancillary, practices he attends.”
By finding that McCants was a “covered employee” under Section 9-203, the Court allowed McCants to continue to pursue his claims before the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission.
Stamps is a contributing writer to Hackney Publications and an attorney for the Law Office of Ricky D. Green, a firm that specializes in workers’ compensation issues.
