SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Maryland Significant Case Summary

In Re Brooks
Appellate Court of Maryland
No. 549, Sept. Term, 2025
Decided: July 15, 2026

A professional football player is a covered employee under LE § 9-203 because at the time of injury he was in an ongoing employment relationship with a Maryland corporation and the purpose of his employment was to participate in football games primarily taking place in Maryland.

Background

The Claimant. a professional football player, signed a standard NFL Player Contract with Pro-Football, LLC t/a the Washington Commanders (“Employer”). In previous years the Claimant had been cut from other NFL teams before the regular season. According to the Employer, the Claimant was likely to be cut prior to the regular season once again. Three days after beginning his employment with the Employer, the Claimant sustained a ruptured left Achilles tendon during practice at the team’s practice training facility in Ashburn, Virginia. Accordingly, the Claimant never played a game in Maryland, although the Employer agreed that it was likely he would have played in two preseason games in Maryland, which they considered a “tryout.” The Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission that found him to not be covered employee and denied the claim. Claimant appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County which found the Claimant was a covered employee after hearing cross motions for summary judgement. The Employer appealed the circuit court’s decision.

Holding

The Claimant signed a contract binding his employment by the Employer until the end of the NFL season and as such anticipated remaining in his employment until that time. Accordingly, the Claimant and the Employer were in an ongoing employment relationship at the time of injury. Additionally, the fact the Claimant had only participated in three practices in Virginia did not have an impact on the purpose of his employment, which was to play football games to take place primarily in Maryland. The Claimant’s participation in practices occurring in Virginia was thus incidental to the purpose of his employment.

Takeaway

To determine whether claimants who complete their work in various jurisdictions are covered employees under LE § 9-203, the plain terms of their employment agreements and the purpose of their employment must be consulted. Further, an employment relationship exists although the employment contract may be terminated at some point prior to the anticipated completion of the contract.

Questions about this matter may be directed to Jamie DeSisto at 443-641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.