The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court's recent decision in Pittsburgh Steelers Sports v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Trucks), No. 1257 C.D. 2018 (Jan. 3, 2020), addressed whether former linebacker Anthony Trucks was considered a seasonal or year-round employee of the team. This decision is sure to arouse some questions as to what happens when an NFL player gets hurt.

Contrary to popular belief, although NFL players routinely sign what sounds like lucrative contracts, most of this money is nonguaranteed. Unless guaranteed money is provided for by their contracts, they are not entitled to the entirety of those widely publicized hefty sums. Soon after signing, teams often can release the player without any financial ramifications. It is very rare for an inexperienced undrafted player or a practice squad player to receive any guaranteed money. However, when a player is injured, a team shall not release them without accepting some degree of financial responsibility, regardless of whether their contract has guaranteed money.

NFL players injured while playing for their teams have different forms of recourse. Most often, they can file an injury grievance with their union, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), and go through a binding arbitration process. However, like Trucks, players can also file workers' compensation claims in individual states.

The Trucks decision addresses how NFL player contracts have added new contractual obligations since the 1990s to expand the scope of the player-team relationship. Based on its analysis, the court found that NFL players like Trucks are now year-round employees of their respective teams.

In a published opinion by Judge Kevin Brobson, the court found Trucks was not a seasonal employee. In reaching that decision, the court noted that although the season itself is limited to preseason, regular season and postseason games, players are also required to attend media and promotional events throughout the year. Furthermore, Trucks was paid every two weeks during the calendar year, not just during the season. Unlike previous decisions involving professional football players, the court decided they must now look at the facts and individual contract obligations of each player to determine if a seasonal employee relationship exists.

In January 2008, Trucks signed a two-year contract with the Steelers for $200,000 for the 2008 season and $230,000 for the 2009 season. The contract terms prohibited Trucks from playing football or engaging in any football-related activities outside of his work with the Steelers.

In August 2008, Trucks was injured during a preseason game. Three years later, he filed a workers' compensation claim petition. In 2014, workers' compensation Judge Kathleen Vallely awarded Trucks $870 in weekly disability benefits based on a $4,000 average weekly wage.

The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board eventually affirmed that calculation and the employer appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. At issue was whether the appeal board erred by calculating Trucks' average weekly wages under Workers' Compensation Act Section 309(c), which states that if a claimant's wages are fixed for the year, the average weekly wage is the annual salary divided by 52.

The employer argued that the board should have followed Section 309(e), because Trucks could not possibly play football throughout the year and is, therefore, a seasonal employee. Section 309(e) states that seasonal employees will have their average weekly wage calculated as one-fiftieth of the total wages they earned from all occupations during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the injury. Since Trucks had just signed with the Steelers and had not earned his $200,000 salary in the preceding year, it would have dramatically decreased his average weekly wage and corresponding compensation rate.

The employer also cited the court's decisions in both Station v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Steelers Sports), 608 A.2d 625 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 615 A.2d 1315 (Pa. 1992), and Ross v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Arena Football League), 702 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), appeal denied, 724 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1998), which both found professional football players with contracts running through fixed periods to be seasonal employees.

In these previous cases, the Commonwealth Court concluded that football players were seasonal employees because: they could only play football in fixed periods, from training camp through the completion of the regular season they were prohibited from playing with other entities while under contract; and they were paid only after playing regular-season games, and thus only compensated during the season.

However, in Trucks, the court looked at Section 309(e) as it had previously interpreted it in both Station and Ross and disagreed that the previous decisions determined all professional football players were seasonal employees. Instead, the court said they must look at the individual contract obligations to determine whether or not a seasonal employee relationship existed.

Under the terms of Trucks' contract, his responsibilities included attendance at mini-camps, training camp, meetings, practice sessions, preseason games, regular-season games and postseason games. The court pointed out that the NFL season can run from a mini-camp at the beginning of April to the Super Bowl in February.

Furthermore, Trucks was obligated to attend 10 assigned appearances per year on behalf of the Steelers and to cooperate with media promotional events. In comparing his player contract with those in Ross and Station, the court found the lack of specific calendar limitations concerning Trucks' obligations indicated his employment was that of an annual salaried employee, not a seasonal employee.

The court determined that Trucks' contract showed the Steelers' intent to maintain authority and control over his activities throughout the two years of his contract. In Ross and Station, the players' contracts did not require any mandatory activities outside of the games.

Moreover, the court noted Trucks' performance was not bound to a fixed period, whereas the players in the earlier cases only received compensation during the season. By contrast, Trucks' contract clearly stated he would be paid a yearly salary in exchange for all obligations. Unlike the contracts in Station and Ross, Trucks' contract included payments in weekly or biweekly installments, not just after playing each regular-season game. Thus, the court found no error in the calculation of his average weekly wage.

By determining Trucks was not a seasonal employee, the court has redefined the employer-employee relationship for NFL players in Pennsylvania. It remains to be seen if the court will apply this standard to workers who are not professional athletes and examine all employment relationships on a contract-by-contract basis, determining whether the employer is attempting to control activity throughout a calendar year.

Jason S. Kaner is an associate at Pond Lehocky handling workers' compensation and employment law matters. He graduated from the joint J.D./M.B.A. program at Villanova University. Before joining the firm, he worked for the National Football League.