Maryland Exclusive Remedy

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Maryland, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive legal remedy for work-related injuries. Md. Lab. & Empl. Code Ann. § 9-509.

This means that the injured employee cannot sue the employer for negligence (which might lead to monetary damages). Claimants subject to the exclusivity rule are limited to obtaining medical, wage-loss, and other benefits available through worker's compensation. The rule also applies to dependents suing on behalf of an injured employee and personal representatives suing on behalf of a deceased employee.

INJURIES COVERED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT

An injury generally is covered by the exclusivity rule if

1. An employer-employee relationship exists;
2. The employer is subject to the worker's compensation act;
3. The injury arises out of and in the course of employment; and
4. The employer secured workers’ compensation coverage.

TYPES OF CLAIMS TYPICALLY BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY RULE

• Negligence (including negligent supervision)
• Premises liability
• Wrongful death
• Emotional distress 
• Loss of consortium 

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to injuries that the employer intentionally inflicted. If an employee establishes intent to injure, she may either sue in negligence or file for worker’s compensation benefits. To show that this exception applies to her case, an employee must prove that the employer actually intended to injure her.

In addition, intent can include instances where the employer has "actual knowledge" that injury is substantially likely to occur but disregards it. 

It’s not enough merely to show that the employer was grossly negligent or reckless, created an unsafe workplace, or violated OSHA. Deliberately placing an employee in a dangerous situation, or willfully violating government regulations, does not constitute an intentional act for purposes of the exclusivity rule.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE

An employee may sue his employer in tort for a work-related injury if the employer plays a second role in addition to employer that places on him obligations in addition to those he has by being the employer. An example is where an employer that also builds equipment and that equipment injures the employee.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties. For example, if an employee is injured by defective equipment manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE

If the employer has not secured workers' compensation coverage, an injured employee may file a workers’ compensation claim or bring a civil suit against his or her employer.

STATUTORY EMPLOYEE DOCTRINE

A principal contractor may establish that it is a “statutory employer” and thus, that it is protected from lawsuits filed by injured employees of its subcontractors. It be immune, it must show that:

1. It undertakes work that is part of its trade or business;
2. It subcontracts part of that work; and
3. The injured worker was employed in carrying out that work. 

RECENT CASES

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc., 338 A.3d 563 (Md. 2025) 

An employee died from a fall while working. His wife and dependent child received workers’ compensation benefits. His adult daughter, who was not financially dependent on the deceased worker, sued the company in tort. The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that the WCA bars a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a deceased worker’s non-dependent adult child against an employer. The court ruled that the exclusivity provision gives employers broad immunity from civil suits arising from workplace injuries and deaths. The court affirmed the dismissal of the adult daughter’s case.

Shannon v. KG Industries, LLC, No. 1673 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 10/18/17, unpublished)

An employee of a subcontractor fell from a ladder while working at a construction site. He sued the principal contractor in tort, arguing that the ladder was negligently installed. The court ruled that the principal contractor was a statutory employer and thus immunized from the lawsuit under the exclusive remedy rule. The court stated that immunity applies regardless of whether the statutory employer actually paid the injured worker benefits under the WCA, as long as the statutory employer was exposed to the potential liability. 

Share This Article: