On Tuesday, July 1st, the Supreme Court of Maryland, Maryland’s highest court, struck a blow to adult children who seek justice for the workplace death of a loved one as a result of an Employer’s negligence., The Court ruled that an “employer enjoys immunity from suit, including against a wrongful death action brought by a non-dependent adult child for the death of a parent…” and that the employer cannot be sued even where such non-dependent adult children have no remedy and receive no benefits under the (Workers’ Compensation Act As a result of this tight 4-3 ruling, nondependent adult children pursuing wrongful death claims are now barred from recovering for the death of a parent and parents are barred from recovering for the death of their adult children, even where the Employer caused the death.
The opinion, written by Justice Eaves, indicated that, based on her view of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the only remedy exists within the Act itself. This is a bit odd, given that the Act does not say anywhere that non-dependents were excluded (only spouses, children and non-dependents).
A 60-page dissent, however, had a vigorous and strongly written disagreement with that analysis. Led by Justice Watts, with 2 other justices agreeing, the dissent correctly pointed out that the Court was inserting a restriction that was nowhere in the Act itself. Plus, Maryland General Assembly, 80 years after the Workers’ Compensation Act was enacted, explicitly gave non- dependent adult parents and children the right to bring wrongful death claims. “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,” noted Justice Watts. “Simply put, I agree.”
Likewise, Justice Killough, also writing for the dissent, poignantly noted, that barring Ms. Ledford from bringing a wrongful death claim in negligence where she is barred from bringing a claim under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act (only dependents can claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act) leaves Ms. Ledford and any non-dependents whose family member is killed due to an Employer’s negligence without a remedy which runs afoul of Article 19 of the Maryland Constitution (as well as the United State Constitution).
The case was briefed and argued by our very own founding partner, Ken Berman, who was requested to take up the case after the trial court had ruled against Ms. Ledford and the intermediate court had ruled against her in a 3-0 opinion. In alignment with the principle at BSG, he echoed a commitment to continued advocacy on behalf of this particular and all injured workers and their families, by taking the next step to right the wrong… “As always, we will seek every avenue of redress”, said Mr. Berman. “We have been the only firm to have the Legislature overturn a Supreme Court decision in the past and we are strategizing on how to do that again in this case, even months before the General Assembly convenes. We are hopeful and somewhat optimistic that we may have the Legislature correct this erroneous result. Indeed, the vigorous dissent, aware of BSG’s history, suggested such an avenue.” While we disagree and are disappointed with the result the Court has opened the door for the Legislature to clarify the intent and clarify the law for the benefit of injured workers and their families. We intend to not walk through that door but barge through it.
