SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Ledford v. Jenway Cont., Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 1755 September Term, 2022

Decided: November 30, 2023

Circuit Court did not err in dismissing a wrongful death action filed against an employer by the non-dependent daughter of the employee.

Background

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff’s father fell to his death while working as an employee of Jenway Contracting, Inc. Plaintiff, the decedent’s 47 year old daughter, then filed a wrongful death action against Jenway pursuant to Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act. In response, Jenway filed a Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that the Plaintiff had no right to action under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act. Jenway claimed that all claims for relief must be made pursuant to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act, while Plaintiff argued that as she was not her father’s dependent, she had no right to benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act and, as such, the exclusive nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act did not apply to her.

The Circuit Court for Baltimore County held that the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy for all claims arising out of the decedent’s work-related injury. The Circuit Court granted Jenway’s Motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff then timely appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court of Baltimore County’s decision. After considering the plain language of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the legislature’s intent, and relevant case law, the Court held that when an employee is injured or killed in the course of their employment any recovery is exclusive to the Workers’ Compensation Act, even if a plaintiff has the grounds for a proper wrongful death action. The Court held that the only exceptions to this stance would be if Jenway had failed to obtain compensation pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act or deliberately caused the death of Plaintiff’s father. Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to cite any case in which it was held that a wrongful death plaintiff’s status as a dependent of the decedent was determinative in determining whether the Worker’s Compensation Act applied.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443)-641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.