MD Supreme Court narrowly boxes out recovery under workers’ comp for nondependent children

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down a victory for employers in narrowly ruling that nondependent adult children pursuing wrongful death claims are barred from recovering against a deceased employee’s employer under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act.

The 4-3 ruling found for Jenway Contracting Inc. of Baltimore in a yearslong dispute brought by Summer Ledford, whose father, John Ledford, suffered fatal injuries on the job in February 2021 while employed by Jenway. The decision affirms both the trial and appellate court’s findings that employers in compliance with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act are immune from such wrongful death lawsuits.

Justice Angela Eaves, in writing for the majority, held that the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision, codified in § 9-509 of the Maryland Labor and Employment Code, bars recovery by adult, nondependent children for claims against their deceased parent’s employer and does not run afoul of Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which provides for a remedy for injuries to an individual’s person or property.

Eaves primarily relied on a plain language analysis of the Act, writing that the General Assembly more than 100 years ago “clearly contemplated” Ledford’s scenario in deciding to provide either direct payment for certain services, such as medical and funeral costs, or reimbursement for those services. Whether an employer elects to reimburse a nondependent child for expenses incurred or pay medical providers and funeral homes directly is irrelevant, Eaves wrote.

“What is relevant is that the General Assembly did not want to saddle grieving, non-dependent individuals with funeral and medical costs, and it accomplished this by providing a legislative avenue for relieving said individuals of that burden,” Eaves wrote. “Thus, we agree with the Appellate Court’s conclusion in this case that “[b]y including those provisions, the [General Assembly] signaled that the Act was exclusive to dependents and non-dependents alike.”

Kenneth Berman, counsel for Ledford, said he is disappointed with the ruling, which he believes presents an opportunity for the legislature to clarify the Workers’ Compensation Act.

“It really is sad because [Ledford] does not get to avail herself of any benefits of workers’ compensation and she also does not get any remedy or redress at all,” Berman said. “She lost an immediate member of her family due to negligence and has no recourse.”

Counsel for Jenway Contracting declined to comment Wednesday.

In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Shirley Watts and joined by Justice Jonathan Biran, Watts wrote she would hold that workers’ compensation is not the exclusive remedy under the Act where a covered employee dies as a result of an accidental personal injury and has only nondependent adult children as surviving relatives.

“Ms. Ledford asserts that the General Assembly would not have given non-dependent children the statutory right to file wrongful death claims if it intended for the Workers’ Compensation Act to eliminate an employer’s liability to non-dependent children,” Watts wrote. “Simply put, I agree.”

In a footnote, Watts called the majority opinion “an incomplete and speculative plain language analysis” that “violates basic principles of statutory construction that this Court is bound to adhere to.” Watts wrote she hopes the General Assembly will elect to address whether § 9-509 was intended to apply to nondependent adult children who are not mentioned in the statute’s language.

In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Peter Killough which Biran also joined, Killough wrote he would reverse the judgment of the Baltimore County Circuit Court and allow the case to proceed to trial.

“Permitting adult non-dependent children to hold employers to account for their wrongful acts does not upset any reciprocal trade-off — it merely honors the separate, statutorily conferred remedy the General Assembly crafted for them in 1997 for the death of a parent,” Killough wrote, referencing the expansion of the Wrongful Death Act in 1997 to permit a decedent’s adult, non-dependent child to bring a wrongful death action to recover noneconomic “solatium” damages.

“Here, the General Assembly chose to confer a remedy to people like Ms. Ledford in 1997 and the majority chooses to revoke it,” Killough said at his opinion’s conclusion. “Respectfully, I believe that this is wrong and flatly contradicts our mandate to ‘advance the remedy.’”

David Muncy, partner at Plaxen Adler Muncy who practices personal injury law, said the ruling is a disappointing decision that fails to create any incentive for employers to put their workers in a safer position.

“It allows employers to basically kill somebody negligently and if there’s no one who’s a dependent of that person, then they essentially get off scot-free and they’re not responsible for any damages in this scenario,” Muncy said in a phone call Wednesday. “I think the decision pretty much closed the door for adult children or non-dependents whose parents are killed by the result of their employer’s negligence.”

Michael Winkelman, president of the Maryland Association for Justice which represents trial attorneys throughout the state, said MAJ will explore a legislative solution “to provide equal protection under the law to all Marylanders.” He did not provide a timeline for pursuing a legislative change.

“We echo the observations of the dissent that this opinion denies access to justice to an entire class of Marylanders who now have no remedy under the law when a loved one dies as the result of negligence of others,” Winkelman said.

Ledford had argued she is not limited to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision, where the General Assembly intended to limit the exclusivity clause to actions from only covered employees, not nondependent children of covered employees.

James Lanier, partner at Warnken LLC in Baltimore who practices personal injury and workers’ compensation law, said the Maryland Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that the legislature is the only avenue for change as to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act.

“I think it’s an unjust finding because it leaves Summer Ledford and other adult non-dependents with no remedy at all,” Lanier said of the high court’s ruling.

Lanier said that while he believes the workers’ compensation system has strengths, it also has weaknesses, such as not being able to protect adult nondependent children. Lanier said attorneys in workers’ compensation cases should look to identify all the dependents and look for third party liability, but in situations like Ledford’s where there is no other wrongful entity, a claim cannot be made.

“That is a bitter pill to swallow,” Lanier said. “It is a hard conversation to tell someone that their loved one died and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.”