Pro-Football, Inc., et.al. v. Jeffrey A. Uhlenhake
558 S.E.2d 571, 37 Va. App. 407, 2002 Va. App. LEXIS 46 (2002)
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by a professional athlete during the course of their employment, even in a high-risk sport, can constitute an 'injury by accident' under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act if it arises from an identifiable incident causing a sudden structural change, as the Act abolishes the common law defense of assumption of risk.
Facts:
- Jeffrey A. Uhlenhake was employed by Pro-Football, Inc., trading as the Washington Redskins, as an offensive lineman starting in 1996, having previously played for other professional teams since 1989.
- During his career, Uhlenhake experienced numerous physical injuries, including anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery on his left knee in 1993, though he reported no pain or discomfort in that knee prior to joining Pro-Football.
- On September 28, 1997, during a regularly scheduled game, another player fell on Uhlenhake's left ankle and foot, causing him to report a left ankle sprain to the team's trainer and physician, Dr. Gordon Lee Avery.
- On November 9, 1997, during a regularly scheduled game, Uhlenhake felt a "pop and pain" in his left knee when he twisted or hyperextended it while blocking an opposing player, reporting it to the training staff the next day, leading to examination by Dr. Avery for significant swelling.
- On November 23, 1997, during a game, Uhlenhake again experienced a "pop and some pain" in his left knee despite wearing an ACL brace.
- At the end of the 1997 football season, Uhlenhake underwent surgery to repair the ACL in his left knee.
- In 1999, Dr. Joseph D. Linehan, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined Uhlenhake and opined that he had a permanent impairment of his left ankle due to arthritis and of his left knee due to the ACL injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey A. Uhlenhake filed a claim for permanent partial disability benefits for injuries to his left ankle/foot and left knee with the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.
- A deputy commissioner of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission ruled that injuries sustained in employment by professional athletes are covered by the Act and awarded Uhlenhake benefits for 5% loss of use of his left foot, 14% loss of use of his left leg (knee), and medical benefits.
- Pro-Football, Inc. filed for review of the deputy commissioner's decision by the full Workers' Compensation Commission.
- Upon its review, the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the award for the left foot injury, rejecting Pro-Football's argument that the alleged injuries were not 'accidental' within the meaning of the Act.
- The Workers' Compensation Commission denied an award of benefits for Uhlenhake's knee injury, finding that the evidence established at most a gradual stretching injury of the ACL graft which progressively worsened during the season, not an identifiable accident.
- Both Pro-Football, Inc. (as appellant regarding the foot injury award and the coverage of professional athletes) and Jeffrey A. Uhlenhake (as appellant regarding the denial of knee injury benefits) appealed the Commission's rulings to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by a professional football player during a game, a known high-risk activity, constitute an 'injury by accident' under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, and does the evidence support an award for a specific foot injury but not for a knee injury alleged to be from cumulative trauma?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge James W. Benton, Jr.
Yes, an injury sustained by a professional football player during a game, even in a known high-risk activity, can constitute an "injury by accident" under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, and the evidence supports the award for the specific foot injury but not for the knee injury which was found to be from cumulative trauma. The court affirmed the commission's award for the left foot injury and the denial of benefits for the left knee injury. The court rejected Pro-Football's argument that injuries in high-risk sports are not "accidental" because they are foreseeable. Virginia's Workers' Compensation Act was established to abolish common law doctrines like assumption of risk. An "injury by accident" under Virginia law requires proof that the injury (1) appeared suddenly at a particular time and place and upon a particular occasion, (2) was caused by an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event, and (3) resulted in an obvious mechanical or structural change in the human body, as established in Southern Express v. Green. The foreseeability of injury due to the nature of employment does not negate its accidental nature if these elements are met. The court distinguished this case from situations involving voluntary off-duty recreational activities or risks of the employee's own choosing, noting Uhlenhake was performing required employment tasks. The court cited Derby v. Swift & Co. for the principle that it is not necessary for there to be an extraordinary occurrence for an injury to be accidental. It also noted that Virginia law consistently holds that if an injury results from conditions of employment exposing the employee to hazards beyond that of the public at large, it is accidental. Regarding the left foot injury, the court found credible evidence supported the Commission's award. Uhlenhake credibly testified to an event on September 28, 1997, where another player fell on his foot, leading to a sprain diagnosed by Dr. Avery. Dr. Linehan later opined a 5% permanent partial impairment due to post-traumatic arthritis resulting from this specific strain. The Commission found Dr. Linehan's testimony persuasive and Pro-Football presented no contrary medical evidence. Regarding the left knee injury, the court affirmed the Commission's finding that Uhlenhake failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his ACL injury resulted from an identifiable accident. The evidence showed he had a history of knee problems, and medical opinions (Dr. Avery, Dr. Jackson) indicated the injury was a stretched rather than torn ACL, opined to be the cumulative result of playing football over many years. Uhlenhake's initial reports to trainers and doctors did not pinpoint a specific incident for the knee injury, and Dr. Linehan's later opinion was based substantially on Uhlenhake's report to him two years after the alleged event. Injuries resulting from cumulative trauma are not compensable under the Act, as held in The Lane Company, Inc. v. Saunders. The Commission's factual findings regarding conflicting medical opinions are binding if supported by credible evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Virginia's Workers' Compensation Act to professional athletes, affirming that their injuries are generally covered despite the inherent high risk of their occupation. It reinforces the principle that the Act abrogated common law defenses like assumption of risk, focusing instead on whether an injury arises from a specific, identifiable incident during employment. The distinction between a compensable injury from a discrete event and a non-compensable injury from cumulative trauma remains critical, highlighting the burden on claimants to prove a specific causal incident. This ruling helps ensure that workers' compensation is not selectively applied based on the perceived dangerousness of a profession.
