Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants
51 A.3d 586
Md.2012Background
- McCants played for the Redskins 2002–2004 and sustained six injuries in 2003–2004.
- He filed six workers’ compensation claims; five were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over out-of-state injuries.
- The Commission ruled he was not a 'covered employee' under § 9-203(a)(2) because most work occurred outside Maryland.
- The circuit court affirmed; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding he was a 'covered employee'.
- Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide if a Redskins player is a 'covered employee' when injured outside Maryland.
- Court held that the employee is regularly employed in Maryland for § 9-203(a)(2); out-of-state injuries are incidental or occasional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent is a covered employee under § 9-203(a)(2). | McCants; regular Maryland employment makes out-of-state work incidental. | Redskins; predominant Virginia practice/conditioning governs regular employment. | Yes; Respondent is a covered employee under § 9-203(a)(2). |
| Whether practice in Virginia can be incidental to Maryland-based employment. | Practices are preparatory and incidental to games in Maryland. | Practices in Virginia constitute the bulk of employment duties and are not incidental. | Practice time deemed incidental/occasional to game-focused Maryland employment. |
| Appropriate standard for determining regular vs casual employment under § 9-203(a)(2). | Elastic, case-by-case analysis; focus on end goal of playing games in Maryland. | Bulk location of employment (Virginia) should control. | Adopts Pohopek framework balancing nature, duration, and location of work. |
| Role of prior cases (Tupa) in interpreting regular Maryland employment. | Tupa supports Maryland as regular employment; games are the focus. | Tupa is distinguishable but supportive of Maryland focus. | Tupa is persuasive; confirms Maryland regular employment where games occur in Maryland. |
| Whether the appeal involves the jurisdiction over out-of-state injury claims. | Out-of-state injuries arise within § 9-203(a)(2) jurisdiction due to regular Maryland employment. | Out-of-state injuries fall outside Maryland jurisdiction if not regularly employed here. | Out-of-state injury claims fall within § 9-203(a)(2) jurisdiction; Commission erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek, 375 Md. 574, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (elastic test for regular vs casual employment under § 9-203(a)(2))
- W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 414 Md. 195, 994 A.2d 956 (2010) (statutory interpretation with deference to agency determinations)
- Hodgson v. Flippo Construction Company, Inc., 164 Md.App. 263, 883 A.2d 211 (2005) (factors informing regular employment in a jurisdiction)
- Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa, 197 Md.App. 463, 14 A.3d 678 (2011) (treatment of Maryland regular employment for Redskins players)
- Pro-Football, Inc. v. Department of Employment Services, 588 A.2d 275 (1991) (principle that player employment localized to district for compensation)