In the Matter of Curtis Brooks, No. 549, September Term, 2025 (filed Aug. 26, 2026). The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari on October 23, 2026 to review this decision.
The Appellate Court of Maryland has once again found that a Washington Commanders football player injured on the field was a covered employee, but this time, during training camp in Virigina, just three days into his contract.
The Claimant, Curtis Brooks, is a defensive tackle, and was selected in the 6th round of the 2022 NFL draft by the Indianapolis Colts. In 2023, he was signed to the practice squad for the Tennessee Titans but was waived in July 2023. In August 2023, he landed with the Washington Commanders.
On August 3, 2023, Mr. Brooks signed an NFL Player Contract with the Commanders for the 2023-2024 season. The contract was executed at the Commanders’ training facility located in Ashburn, Virginia. On August 6, 2023, just three days later, Mr. Brooks sustained a ruptured left Achilles tendon injury during practice. At that time, Mr. Brooks had just started training camp, was not on the active roster, and never played a game for the Commanders at their home field, Northwest Stadium, in Landover, Maryland.
The NFL Player Contract provided that Mr. Brooks was being employed as a “skilled football player.” The contract specified, in part, that he would “report promptly for and participate fully in Club’s official mandatory minicamp(s), official preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by Club.” The contract covered one football season, beginning on the date of execution, and ending on the last day of the 2023 season, unless extended, terminated, or renewed as specified in the contract.
Following the August 3, 2023 injury, Mr. Brooks filed a claim with the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission, and a compensability hearing was held on May 14, 2024. By Order dated May 17, 2024, the Commission found that the Claimant was not a covered employee under Maryland law and the claim was disallowed.
Mr. Brooks appealed the Commission’s decision to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. During a deposition, Rob Rogers, Senior Vice President of Football Operations for the Commanders, testified that the team expected to have four or five defensive tackles on the active roster and one on the practice squad. He further testified that there were seven other players in contention for those spots and that it was “unlikely” that Mr. Brooks would have made the active roster or practice squad. Upon being questioned by Mr. Brooks’ attorney, Mr. Rogers admitted that he never told Mr. Brooks at any point before signing the contract that he did not think he was going to make the team. Mr. Rogers recognized that it was likely that Mr. Brooks would have played in the preseason games, which he equated to a “tryout.”
On summary judgement, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County reversed the Commission’s decision, ruling in favor of Mr. Brooks.
Pro-Football, LLC t/a the Washington Commanders appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, seeking review of the Circuit Court’s decision.
On appeal, the Appellants argued that Mr. Brooks’ employment was not “consistent and predictable” given that he had only been employed for three days before his injury sustained during training camp, he had not yet played a game for the team, and because it was unlikely he would be signed to the active roster for the 2023 season. Appellants further argued that Mr. Brooks was essentially participating in a “tryout” in Virginia, which is where the training camp was located and where the injury took place, thus, his work outside of Maryland was not on a “casual, incidental, or occasional basis,” as required by the statute to establish covered employment.
Conversely, Mr. Brooks argued he had a contract for employment as a “skilled football player” with the Commanders, with the express purpose of playing professional football games for the club at their Northwest Stadium in Maryland. He further argued that despite never playing any games in Maryland, that did not affect the purpose of his employment and the stated terms of the contract.
The Appellate Court found the two previous football cases instructive, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa and Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants, both of which addressed the question of covered employment in Maryland, although factually different, as those players were signed to longer term contracts and played in games. In Pro-Football v. Tupa, punter, Thomas Tupa, injured his back during a pre-game warmup in 2005 at the Commanders’ home field in Maryland, while on a four-year contract that began in 2004. Although the Court acknowledged that Mr. Tupa worked “primarily” in Virginia, which is where the team held practices, the Court held that he was regularly employed in Maryland per the terms of the contract, which was for the purpose of playing football games, more of which took place in Maryland than any other state. The Court observed that his employment in Maryland was “consistent and predictable,” with eight regular season games and two pre-season games at home per year.
In Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants, wide receiver, Darnerian McCants, filed multiple claims for injuries sustained in Maryland, as well as other states during games and at practice while under a three-year contract. The Commission disallowed the out of State claims and the Circuit Court affirmed. The Appellate Court, however, reversed the decision finding the lower court erred, observing that the contract contemplated 24 regular season games and six pre-season games during the three-year deal, and Mr. McCants’ “practice time in Virginia is a subordinate, ancillary consequence of his employment with the team existing only because [Mr. McCants] is required to perform in football games.”
In the instant case, the Appellate Court declined to engage in speculation as to how many games Mr. Brooks may have played in Maryland and instead emphasized the importance of the “ongoing relationship” between the parties. The Court reasoned that even though Mr. Brooks had not participated in any games for the Commanders, his contract contemplated this would occur, and that it required him to participate in all preseason, regular season, and postseason football games, as well as practice in Viriginia, which was “incidental to his employment for the Team…for the purpose of winning football games, more of which would have taken place in Maryland than anywhere else.”
This decision underscores that an employee’s limited tenure and lack of prior work in Maryland do not necessarily foreclose covered-employee status under Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act. In Brooks’s case, the Appellate Court emphasized the contractual employment relationship and anticipated participation in Maryland games, treating his training in Virginia as incidental to that employment. For employers and insurers assessing multistate claims, the decision highlights the importance of examining the scope and purpose of the hiring, contractual duties, and contemplated work locations alongside the employee’s actual work history. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari on October 23, 2026, and its review will address whether the Appellate Court’s analysis properly applied the statutory requirement of regular employment in Maryland.
Katherine Nalley