By Steven Stamps
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has upheld a circuit court decision that a Washington Redskins football player could pursue workers’ compensation benefits in Maryland and that he was entitled to benefits. The court held that Thomas Tupa was regularly employed in Maryland, the forum selection clause in his contract did not change Maryland’s jurisdiction, the fact that he played football did not mean that such an injury was foreseeable, and that the accidental work injury contributed to his disability.
Thomas Tupa was a NFL punter for 17 years. He played for the Cardinals, Colts, Browns, Patriots, Jets, Bucs, and Redskins from 1988 through 2005. Tupa was contracted with the Redskins from 2004 through 2006. He injured his back while warming up for a 2005 preseason game at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. His back injury forced him onto injured reserve and he has not played football since. He was paid the remainder of his contract for the 2005-2006 NFL season. In February of 2006, he was named Recreation Director for Bucksville, Ohio.
On March 30, 2007, Tupa filed a claim for benefits with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission. Tupa requested temporary partial disability benefits for the period beginning March 1, 2006 through the present. The Redskins contested Tupa’s claim on three grounds: (1) Maryland did not have jurisdiction over the claim, (2) Tupa did not suffer an “accidental injury” arising out of and in the course of his employment, and (3) there was no causal connection between Tupa’s August 19, 2005 injury and his ongoing disability. The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commissioner found in favor of Tupa and ordered the Redskins to pay Tupa temporary partial disability benefits and related medical expenses. The Redskins appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County where a jury found in favor of Tupa. The Redskins then appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
The Court of Special Appeals was presented with two questions for review:
1. Whether the circuit court erred in determining that Maryland has jurisdiction over Tupa’s claim, when Tupa signed a contract agreeing to bring all workers’ compensation claims in the Commonwealth of Virginia?
2. Whether the circuit court erred in affirming the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission’s finding that Tupa sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment on August 19, 2005?
The first question the court needed to answer in order to determine if Maryland had jurisdiction was whether Tupa was a “covered employee” under Maryland law. This was a question because Tupa only played games in Maryland. The majority of his employment involved practice time in Virginia. The court stated that the primary business of the Redskins is to field a team to play NFL games. All of the team’s home games are played in Maryland. The court ruled that Tupa’s employment in Maryland was regular and not incidental because he was employed to play games primarily in Maryland.
After determining that Tupa was “covered employee,” it went on to find that Maryland had jurisdiction over Tupa’s claim even though there is a strong presumption in favor of enforcement of freely negotiated contractual choice of forum provisions. The forum selection clause in Tupa’s contract was held to be invalid as contrary to Maryland public policy. Section 9-104 of the Maryland workers’ compensation act was written to ensure that employers cannot contract out of coverage. The Court of Special Appeals determined that Maryland public policy outweighed the benefits of free forum selection in contracts.
The final issue before the court was whether Tupa’s disability was compensable. The court -needed to determine whether Tupa sustained a compensable accidental injury and whether the injury was a cause of the disability. On the issue of whether Tupa sustained a compensable accidental injury, the court held that he did suffer a compensable accidental injury. The Redskins argued that it was foreseeable that an injury would occur over a long career in professional football. The court stated that it was clear that the injury was sudden and unexpected and rejected the argument that there should be an “assumption of risk” defense for hazardous employment.
With the determination that Tupa had sustained a compensable accidental injury, the final question for the court was whether Tupa’s disability was causally related to the accidental injury. The Redskins argued that Tupa’s disability was caused by chronic disk degeneration and not the accident of August 19, 2005. The court disagreed with the team’s position. Tupa had played the entire previous season with the same underlying chronic condition and was not in constant pain. Following the August 19, 2005 injury, he reported constant and severe pain as well as trouble performing regular daily activities and sleeping. The court held that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that the injury was causally related to the accident.
With these findings, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. Maryland had jurisdiction over Tupa’s claim, he suffered an accidental injury, his disability was causally connected to the actual injury, and he was entitled to benefits from February 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007.
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.
