Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, 305 A.3d 498

On February 25, 2021, John Ledford fell to his death while working for Jenway Contracting; his death undisputedly arose out of and in the course of employment.
His daughter, Summer Ledford, filed a wrongful death action under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act (CJP § 3-901 et seq.) asserting employer negligence and seeking non‑pecuniary damages (mental anguish, loss of society, etc.).
Jenway moved to dismiss under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing L&E § 9-509 makes the Act the exclusive remedy when a covered employee is killed in the course of employment.
Ledford responded that she is a non‑dependent and therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, so the exclusivity provision should not bar her wrongful death claim.
The circuit court granted Jenway’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the Act’s exclusivity bars the wrongful death suit absent the Act’s narrow exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Workers’ Compensation Act bars a wrongful‑death suit by a non‑dependent when a covered employee is killed in the course of employment	Ledford: §9‑509(b) limits rights only of covered employees/dependents; as a non‑dependent she has no remedy under the Act so exclusivity should not apply	Jenway: §9‑509 makes employer liability exclusive whenever a covered employee is injured/killed in course of employment, with only the Act’s statutory exceptions	The exclusivity provision applies: employer’s liability and any recovery are exclusive to the Act regardless of plaintiff’s dependent status; dismissal affirmed

Knoche v. Cox, 282 Md. 447 (1978) (Supreme Court held wrongful‑death suit against employer preempted where death arose out of employment)
Austin v. Thrifty Diversified, Inc., 76 Md. App. 150 (1988) (Md. Ct. Spec. App. affirmed exclusivity where fatal injury arose in course of employment)
Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 327 Md. 275 (1992) (describes purpose and compromise embodied in Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act)
Lowery v. McCormick Asbestos Co., 300 Md. 28 (1984) (interpreting Act’s preamble and exclusivity language as clear expression of legislative purpose)
Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks, 147 Md. 368 (1925) (historical statement of the Act’s compromise: give labor compensation and limit employers’ common‑law liability)
Montgomery Cnty. v. Robinson, 435 Md. 62 (2013) (Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and construed liberally to effectuate its purpose)