Professional athletes have always occupied a unique place in workers' compensation law. Unlike traditional employees who report to a single worksite each day, professional athletes travel across multiple states, practice in one location, compete in another, and often sign short-term contracts that can end as quickly as they begin. As a result, determining where an athlete is "regularly employed" can become just as important as determining whether an injury occurred in the course of employment.
The recent Curtis Brooks decision from the Appellate Court of Maryland highlights this challenge. Curtis Brooks, a defensive tackle who signed with the Washington Commanders on August 3, 2023, ruptured his Achilles tendon during a training camp practice in Ashburn, Virginia, just three days later. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission initially denied his claim, finding he was not a covered employee under Maryland law. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County reversed that decision, and the Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that Brooks qualified as a covered employee despite never playing a game in Maryland and suffering his injury in Virginia. The decision raises an interesting question for workers' compensation professionals: Was this truly a Maryland workers' compensation claim, or a bit of a stretch?
Let's examine both sides.
Why This IS a Workers' Compensation Claim
At the most basic level, Brooks had already signed a standard NFL Player Contract with the Commanders before his injury. The contract explicitly employed him as a professional football player for the 2023 NFL season and required him to participate in training camp, practices, meetings, and games. At the time of the injury, there was no dispute that the contract was active and that Brooks was performing duties required by that contract. The injury occurred during a mandatory training camp practice, making it difficult to argue that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment
A key factor in the court's analysis was the purpose of Brooks' employment. Although practices were conducted in Virginia, the Commanders' home games were played in Maryland. The court relied heavily on prior Maryland football cases, including Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa and Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants, which recognized that practices are incidental to the primary objective of a professional football player's job: playing games. The court essentially viewed the Virginia training facility as a place to prepare players for games, many of which would occur in Maryland. Therefore, Brooks' Virginia activities were connected to Maryland employment.
Maryland courts previously reached similar conclusions in cases involving Washington's NFL franchise, most notably Tupa and McCants. Both Tupa and McCants held that time spent practicing outside Maryland does not automatically prevent a professional football player from qualifying as a Maryland covered employee. The Brooks decision follows this same line of reasoning.
Why This May NOT BE a Workers' Compensation Claim
The most persuasive argument for the Commanders is straightforward: the injury occurred in Virginia during a Virginia training camp practice. Brooks had never performed any football duties in Maryland before the injury occurred. Traditionally, workers' compensation jurisdiction has strong ties to either the location of the injury or the location of employment. Here, both the contract execution and the injury occurred in Virginia.
In fact, Brooks never played a game, attended a game, or performed any football duties in Maryland before the injury occurred.
Brooks had been a member of the organization for only three days when he suffered the Achilles rupture. Unlike the players in Tupa and McCants, Brooks never developed an ongoing employment history with the Commanders. Critics could argue that characterizing someone as "regularly employed" in Maryland after only three days of employment stretches the statutory language beyond its ordinary meaning.
Perhaps the biggest policy concern is where this decision leads. If a player who never worked in Maryland, never played in Maryland, and was employed for only three days can qualify as a Maryland employee, employers may fear that Maryland jurisdiction could extend to many temporary, probationary, or preseason employees. Insurers and employers may view the decision as expanding coverage beyond what the legislature intended when it created the "casual, incidental, or occasional" employment standard.
So, Did Maryland Get It Right?
The Brooks decision demonstrates why athlete workers' compensation claims are rarely simple. On one hand, Brooks was undeniably under contract, performing required duties, and working toward the very purpose for which the Commanders hired him: playing professional football games, including games in Maryland. On the other hand, he was injured in Virginia, never played a game for the team, and had been employed for only three days when the injury occurred.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court focused on the purpose of Brooks' employment relationship and his expectation of playing for a Maryland-based NFL team. For professional sports teams and their insurers, the decision serves as a reminder that jurisdictional questions involving athletes are often decided not by where an injury occurs, but by where the employment relationship is ultimately centered.
Whether one views Brooks as a logical extension of Tupa and McCants or as an expansion of Maryland jurisdiction, the decision reinforces a reality unique to professional sports: where an athlete is injured may matter less than where the employment relationship is ultimately centered.