By Nicole M. Bryson, Esq.
The right of injured players to claim workers’ compensation benefits in states where they played games rather than where the team is based has been an on-going issue in the National Football League (NFL). In fact, this issue was featured in last month’s Sports Litigation Alert and this discussion picks up where the other left off. (For full details, see my article, “Workers’ Compensation Ruling Involving Dolphins Could Have Far-Reaching Implications,” published in the May 20, 2011 Sports Litigation Alert.)
By way of background, the Dolphins were confronted with a claim for workers’ compensation benefits filed by former wide receiver Kendal Newson. Mr. Newson suffered a career ending knee injury during a preseason game at Heinz field, Pennsylvania in 2005 and he elected to pursue his claim for injury benefits before the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Bureau.
The Dolphins responded with a suit against Mr. Newson in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In that case, the Dolphins sought a permanent injunction claiming that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Implementation Agreement required Newson to pursue his claim under Florida law.
However, the Dolphins’ claim was expressly rejected by US Magistrate Judge Lenihan.
Having been soundly thrashed in court, the Dolphins are now seeking an end run around Judge Lenihan’s decision. Instead of appealing the May 3rd ruling, the Dolphins, together with the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Orlando Magic of the National Basketball Association, and the Tampa Bay Lightening of the National Hockey League have turned to the state’s legislature in hope of obtaining the relief the Pennsylvania state court refused them.
The proposed legislation makes all Florida workers subject to the state’s workers’ compensation laws regardless of where they are injured. The Florida House and Senate have passed the bill unanimously, and according to all news accounts, Florida Governor, Rick Scott, is expected to sign the legislation later this month.
There are at least three major problems with the proposed legislation.
First, under Florida law, professional sports clubs are not required to provide workers’ compensation benefits for their players. Since Florida’s workers’ compensation statute exempts professional athletes from coverage, it is nonsensical that the proposed legislation be interpreted as requiring professional athletes to file workers’ compensation claims exclusively under Florida law.
Second, as Newson’s attorney suggests, the legislation seems too broad. The bill was requested by the professional football, basketball and hockey clubs in Florida to prevent their employees from filing claims for workers’ compensation benefits in states other than Florida.
It seems unfair to allow the concerns of a few professional sports clubs about the claims of two or three hundred former players to impact the rights of thousands of other workers in Florida to claim injury benefits outside of Florida.
Finally, the proposed legislation should otherwise be unenforceable to contravene the statutorily enacted public policy of protecting injured workers in states like Pennsylvania and California.
Given the breadth of Judge Lenihan’s decision, and stern warning about attempting to circumvent the authority of other state courts, it is unclear how the Dolphins believe the legislation will function any different than the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Implementation Agreement, or player contract in requiring players to file workers’ compensation benefits exclusively under Florida law.
Since a state legislature is generally limited to controlling conduct within its jurisdiction and cannot dictate how another state should treat claims pursuant to its workers’ compensation laws, the proposed legislation should have no bearing on the statutory rights of players to claim workers’ compensation benefits under the laws of any state where they have accrued a right to benefits.
Moreover, football is a national game. Teams and their players travel the country to compete and players are exposed to injury every time they take the field. Given this risk, it is absurd to require players like Newson, who suffered a career ending injury in Pennsylvania, [not Florida] to claim benefits exclusively under Florida law.
For the individual players, prevailing under the more favorable laws of states like California and Pennsylvania means greater financial compensation and better medical benefits while the clubs fear the rising costs associated with the numerous workers’ compensation claims being made outside the state of Florida, most notably in California and in this instance, Pennsylvania.
The right of injured players to file workers’ compensation benefits in states where they played games rather than where the team is based has been an on-going issue in the National Football League (NFL).
I am hopefully optimistic the debate between the National Football League Management Council (NFLMC) and the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) over the proper venue for workers’ compensation claims will finally be put to rest with the arbitrator’s decision on the consolidated workers’ compensation cases expected to be handed down later this month.
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 hopes to start a career involving workers’ compensation and sports.
