Md. Top Court Holds that Non-Dependent Adult Child Can’t Escape Exclusivity Bar

Case File

The Maryland Supreme Court held that the plain language of the exclusive remedy provision of the state's Workers' Compensation Act was unambiguous in that a compliant employer's liability for a covered employee's work-related injuries or death extends no further than what is provided in the act itself; because the act didn't authorize adult non-dependent children of a covered employee to file a wrongful death action for a work-related death of a parent, the employer was not subject to liability in tort. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting Inc., No. 3 September Term, 2024 (Md. 07/01/2025)

What Happened

In the course of his employment with a contracting company, a worker fell from a retaining wall and died from his injuries. The worker was survived by his adult, non-dependent daughter. As a non-dependent, the daughter was unable to receive death benefits under Maryland's Workers' Compensation Act, so filed a claim against the company under Maryland's Wrongful Death Act.

The trial court dismissed the claim, citing the exclusive remedy bar, and the appellate court affirmed.

The daughter appealed to Maryland's Supreme Court, arguing that workers' compensation exclusivity under Maryland law applied only to covered employees and dependent covered employees.

Rule of Law

The Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision specifies that an employer's liability is limited to workers' compensation remedies. An employee is limited in his recovery for injuries sustained within the scope of employment and may not bring a tort action against his employer, provided that the injury was not caused by the employer's deliberate act.

What the Maryland Supreme Court Said

The Maryland Supreme Court found that the daughter's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The court highlighted that the "lynchpin" of the "Grand Bargain" is the exclusivity provision's limitations on an employer's liability and granting an employee's right to compensation.

Regarding the daughter's argument that because non-dependent children are not mentioned in the exclusivity provision's prohibition that only "a covered employee or the dependents of a covered employee" are barred from bringing an action against an employer outside of the Workers' Compensation Act, non-dependent children are therefore not subject to the prohibition, the court explained that the language of the statute permits an exception to an employer's limited liability only to the extent that it explicitly is stated in the act.

"[The daughter] cannot point to -- and we cannot find -- any other exception within the Act that extends an employer's liability to an adult, non-dependent child's wrongful death claim," the court wrote.

The court highlighted another piece of the Workers' Compensation Act that detailed that when an employee dies without dependents, the employer's "liability" is "limited to" medical costs and benefits.

"Thus, the phrase 'limited to' indicates that -- in all instances -- an employer's liability when there are no dependents will not exceed" medical costs and benefits, the court explained.

The court cited caselaw to support its position:

Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks, 147 Md. 368 (1925). A minor received a judgment for damages after she developed phosphorous poisoning while working for a fireworks company. The Maryland Supreme Court held that the Workers' Compensation Act was the minor's exclusive remedy and that she could not recover in common law, as her injury arose out of the scope of her employment.

Knoche v. Cox, 282 Md. 447 (1978). A dental assistant was negligently shot and killed at work when the dentist was showing a pistol to an interested patient. The assistant's husband filed a wrongful death action against the dentist, but the Maryland Supreme Court held that the incident arose out of the decedent's employment, and, therefore, the dentist's liability was limited by the exclusivity provision of the act.

Austin v. Thrifty Diversified, Inc., 76 Md. App. 150 (1988). Parents of a deceases covered employee brought a wrongful death action after their son died on his employer's premises when using company equipment after hours. The Appellate Court held that the son's death arose out of and in the course of employment and that the Workers' Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy.

In analyzing these cases, the court reasoned that they stood for the principle that "once a covered employee is injured or killed in the course of employment, the Workers' Compensation Act becomes the sole means for recovery, regardless of whether a wrongful death action might otherwise be appropriate.

Verdict: The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court.

Takeaway

An employer that complies with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act enjoys immunity from suit, including against a wrongful death action brought by a non-dependent adult child for the death of a parent.

Share This Article: