By Nicole M. Bryson, Esq.
Fred Barnett, John Bosa, Jeff Dellenbach, Mark Duper, Tent Gamble, Hugh Green, Jim Jensen, James McKnight, Lester Towns are just a few of the former Miami Dolphins players now seeking workers’ compensation and claiming benefits in the state of California.
The Dolphins have responded with an action to consolidate and dismiss the more than 120 workers’ compensation claims that are now pending against them before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Subsequently, the California WCAB approved the consolidation; however, they refused to dismiss the claims. The WCAB did stay all claims against the Dolphins pending the outcome of arbitration on the contractual issues raised by the team.
The wait is over. On July 18, 2011, arbitrator Shyam Das, issued an award in favor of the players and their union, the National Football League Player’s Association (NFLPA) holding that nothing in the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Implementation Agreement, or player contract can reasonably be construed as barring players from filing a statutory claim for workers’ compensation benefits under the laws of any state.
Nevertheless, the Dolphins have tried to argue that by filing claims in California, the players violated the terms of the CBA and Implementation Agreement which require all current and former Dolphins players to claim injury benefits exclusively under Florida law through the independent arbitration panel.
Furthermore, the Dolphins contend that 30 of the more than 120 players now seeking benefits under California law breached specific addenda to their individual player contracts requiring them to file their workers’ compensation claims exclusively with the independent arbitration panel under Florida law. Since the contractual addenda is only applicable in a de minimis number of cases, I will not deal with that issue in this article. Instead I will focus on the Dolphins contentions surrounding the CBA and the Implementation Agreement. If you are interested in my thoughts on the contractual addenda issue, please see my recent article, “Dolphins Join Battle Against Workers’ Compensation Benefits” published in the previous edition of Professional Sports and the Law.
There is no disputing that players are entitled to statutory workers’ compensation benefits in addition to the rights guaranteed by the CBA. The question is whether that statutory right can only be claimed in the state where the team is based or if players are free to choose any forum where they have accrued a right to claim workers’ compensation benefits.
In this particular instance, Florida workers’ compensation statutes exclude professional athletes from protection. However, Article LIV of the CBA requires the Dolphins to guarantee players “equivalent benefits” in exchange for immunity from tort suits. To that end, the Implementation Agreement establishes an independent review panel and outlines the process for determining entitlement to such “equivalent benefits.”
The Dolphins contend that because the club is required to provide equivalent benefits and establish an independent arbitration panel to do so, the players are also required to submit their claims for workers’ compensation benefits exclusively under Florida law through the independent arbitration panel.
The problem with this argument is that the Implementation Agreement only speaks to local processing of claims made for “equivalent benefits” under Florida law and does not address, let alone purport to prohibit a players’ right to claim workers’ compensation benefits under the laws of any state.
By its own language, the Implementation Agreement only applies to local processing of workers’ compensation claims for “equivalent benefits” guaranteed by the CBA, which are totally separate from any statutory right a player may have to benefits in states other than Florida.
Also, while the Implementation Agreement indicates arbitration is the “more desirable method for determining entitlement to benefits,” it does not mean arbitration is intended as the exclusive remedy. This is not the kind of mandatory or compulsory language that can be interpreted as requiring an employee to submit exclusively to arbitration for a determination of equivalent benefits.
In fact, the only reason the NFLPA and NFLMC entered into the Implementation Agreement is because Florida law excludes professional athletes from coverage and both sides recognized something needed to be done to protect injured athletes who elect to pursue workers’ compensation benefits in the state of Florida whether or not their team is based there.
Timothy English, staff counsel for the NFLPA and the primary drafter of the Implementation Agreement, testified about the nature and purpose of the agreement before Arbitrator Das. According to Mr. English, he drafted the agreement in large part because ,during the 1970’s and early 80’s, players were filing all sorts of claims including lawsuits, statutory workers’ compensation claims (despite the fact that athletes were not covered under statute), letters and grievances for workers’ compensation benefits. The Implementation Agreement was created to provide a simple streamlined method for players electing to pursue workers’ compensation benefits in Florida.
Even if the Implementation Agreement is interpreted as limiting professional athletes to “equivalent benefits”, players could still pursue workers’ compensation claims outside of Florida, the same as all other Florida workers. This is because Florida workers’ compensation law contains an offset provision essentially providing that if a worker receives injury benefits under the laws of another state, the total compensation can be no more than what is provided under Florida law. This means that even under the Implementation Agreement, players can still file workers’ compensation claims in states other than Florida. It is worth noting that the Dolphins do not dispute this fact.
Alternatively, the Dolphins contend that by signing the Implementation Agreement the NFLPA waived the right of its players to pursue workers’ compensation benefits outside of the state of Florida. However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that unions and employers have no authority to waive the statutorily protected rights of workers and football players are no different.
In this instance, the Dolphins waiver argument is even more nonsensical given that Florida’s workers’ compensation laws do not recognize professional athletes. The athlete [or his union] cannot waive a right he never had.
Furthermore, the Dolphins are hard pressed to make such arguments when in the 23 years since the Implementation Agreement has been in place, the Dolphins never raised the Agreement as a defense until now, and have for years settled workers’ compensation claims outside of Florida, including in the state of California.
Applicant attorney Modesto Diaz testified before Arbitrator Das that his firm handled cases for at least 14 former Dolphin players who sought workers’ compensation benefits in the state of California and under its laws between 1985, when the Implementation Agreement was created and 2008, when the Dolphins first filed their grievance. During this time, the Dolphins never raised the Implementation Agreement as a defense. Sure, the Dolphins raised jurisdiction as a defense, however, they made general appearances instead of making special appearances specifically objecting jurisdiction and ultimately settled all 14 cases. This hardly evidences that the Dolphins sincerely believed they could escape California jurisdiction.
Moreover, football is a national sport; teams and players travel across the country to compete. Football is a vicious sport and players risk injury every time they take the field. Therefore, it is foreseeable that the Dolphins might be required to defend a suit for workers’ compensation benefits outside of Florida, including in California. Hence, the NFL’s own arbitrators have consistently held that the League has no jurisdiction under the CBA to determine what benefits players are entitled to under state law.
The hearing before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on the consolidated cases is set for September 2011. Although the Dolphins have not yet moved to dismiss the action, I expect they will again lose on their argument. One thing is for sure, the entire league is anxiously anticipating the outcome of these consolidated cases.
While a student at University of San Francisco School of Law, Nicole Bryson interned with the Oakland Raiders legal department focusing solely on workers’ compensation. She passed the February 2011 California Bar exam and was sworn into practice June, 2011. Nicole is a new associate at Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, & Claffey, a multi-office workers’ compensation defense firm in California.
