Background
Curtis Brooks signed a standard NFL Player Contract with Pro-Football, LLC, doing business as the Washington Commanders, on August 3, 2023. The contract employed him as a skilled football player for the 2023 season and required participation in training camp, practices, and all preseason, regular-season, and postseason games scheduled by the club. The Commanders practiced in Virginia and played home games in Maryland.
Brooks ruptured his left Achilles tendon during a Virginia training-camp practice three days after signing. He had not played a game for the Commanders and was never placed on the active roster. The Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission denied his claim on the ground that he was not a covered employee. The Prince George’s County Circuit Court reversed on cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. Under Labor and Employment § 9-203(a)(2), an employee working outside Maryland on a casual, incidental, or occasional basis is covered if the employer regularly employs that person in Maryland. Brooks was an employee when injured, so the issue was whether his employment was regularly in Maryland.
Applying Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa and Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants, the court held that professional football players are employed principally to play games, while practice is ancillary to that purpose. Brooks’s contract contemplated his participation in the Commanders’ games, more of which would occur in Maryland than in any other state. His lack of prior Maryland game appearances, short tenure, and uncertain roster prospects did not defeat coverage; the court declined to speculate about how many games he ultimately would have played.
Key Takeaways
- A player may be a Maryland covered employee before physically performing job duties in Maryland.
- For professional football players, Virginia practices are incidental to the employment purpose of playing games.
- Coverage turns on the employment relationship and contractual expectations at the time of injury, not hindsight about roster status or future playing time.
Why It Matters
The decision extends the reasoning of Tupa and McCants to a player injured almost immediately after hiring. An NFL club cannot avoid Maryland workers’ compensation coverage merely because a player was injured in out-of-state camp before appearing in a Maryland game.
For employers and claimants, the case underscores that the situs analysis under § 9-203 is functional and contract-centered, rather than a simple count of where work had already been performed.