Caseflicks

Court of Appeals of Maryland • 2012

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa

428 Md. 198 | 51 A.3d 544 | 2012 Md. LEXIS 475

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that an employer cannot contract away Maryland workers’ compensation protections, and that a worker’s injury is accidental when the injury—not necessarily the work activity that produced it—is unexpected.

Background

Thomas Tupa, a professional punter for Pro-Football, Inc., t/a the Washington Redskins, signed an NFL employment contract containing a clause selecting Virginia law and the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission as the exclusive forum for workers’ compensation claims. Pro-Football was incorporated in Maryland, owned FedEx Field in Prince George’s County, and played all home games there. Although its headquarters and primary practice facility were in Virginia, Tupa’s injury occurred in Maryland.

During a pregame warm-up at FedEx Field on August 19, 2005, Tupa landed awkwardly after a punt and felt sharp, jarring lower-back pain. He immediately sought treatment. Medical evidence showed substantial progression of an underlying degenerative spinal condition after the incident, and Tupa ultimately could not return to professional football. He initially filed, then withdrew, a Virginia workers’ compensation claim before filing in Maryland in March 2007.

The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission held that it could exercise jurisdiction, that Tupa sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and that his disability was causally related to the August 2005 injury. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County ruled as a matter of law that Maryland had jurisdiction, and a jury found both an accidental injury and causal connection. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, including by overruling its earlier decision in Rowe v. Baltimore Colts. The employer and insurer sought further review on the forum-selection and accidental-injury issues.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a contractual forum-selection and choice-of-law clause requiring workers’ compensation claims to proceed under Virginia law before the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission deprived Maryland of jurisdiction over Tupa’s claim.

Holding

No. The clause was void to the extent it purported to waive Tupa’s rights and Pro-Football’s duties under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act.

Reasoning

Maryland Labor and Employment Article § 9-104(a) expressly prohibits a covered employee and employer from agreeing to exempt either party from duties under the Workers’ Compensation Act or to waive rights under it. Any agreement violating that prohibition is void to the extent of the violation. Nothing in the statute creates an exception for forum-selection clauses.

The Court declined to import the general presumption favoring commercial forum-selection clauses into the workers’ compensation setting. Enforcing this clause would allow the employer to avoid Maryland compensation duties otherwise applicable to an injury sustained in Maryland, and would require the Court to add an exception the Legislature did not enact.

Maryland precedent independently supported the result. In Kacur and McElroy, the Court had treated contractual provisions selecting another state’s workers’ compensation law or forum as ineffective when Maryland compensation law otherwise applied. Workers’ compensation is not merely a private contractual matter; the public has a substantial interest in maintaining the statutory protections that the Legislature established for covered employees.

Because Tupa was injured while warming up for a game at the employer’s Maryland stadium, Maryland had a sufficient basis to apply its compensation law. The contractual Virginia clause therefore could not prevent the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission from adjudicating the claim.

Issue #2

Whether Tupa’s back injury during a routine professional-football pregame warm-up was an accidental personal injury under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act.

Holding

Yes. An injury may be accidental even when it occurs during an expected and routine employment activity, so long as the resulting injury itself is unexpected, unintended, or unusual.

Reasoning

The employer relied on Rowe v. Baltimore Colts, which had denied coverage to a football player on the theory that physical injury in professional football was expected and commonplace. The Court agreed with the Court of Special Appeals that Rowe could not be reconciled with Harris v. Board of Education and therefore was properly overruled.

Harris rejected the older rule requiring an accidental injury to result from an unusual strain, exertion, condition, or occurrence. The statutory definition contains no unusual-activity requirement. Instead, the relevant question is whether the resulting injury was unexpected, unintended, or unusual, not whether the employee was performing an ordinary part of the job.

Tupa was performing his assigned duties when he landed awkwardly after a punt, experienced sudden sharp back pain, and promptly obtained medical care. The evidence showed a serious worsening of his spinal condition and disability that ended his professional football career. That evidence amply supported the finding that he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

Treating football injuries as nonaccidental merely because football entails risks would improperly deny covered employees compensation for doing the very work for which they were hired. Professional athletes receive the same statutory protection as other workers; a dangerous occupation does not make an unintended disabling injury noncompensable.