# Ledford v. Jenway Contracting

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · July 1, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087715

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** July 1, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Eaves
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087715

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, aside from very narrow exceptions, “workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy of the injured employee and his dependents against an employer for an injury or death”
- describing the “time-honored principle of exclusivity from liability by any other remedy for disabilities caused by the environment in the workplace”

## Opinion text

Summer Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc., No. 3, September Term, 2024. Opinion by
Eaves, J.

MD. CODE ANN., LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT § 9-509(a)— EMPLOYER’S
LIABILITY — EXCLUSIVITY

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that an employer that complies with the provisions
of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”) 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’s exclusive liability is cabined to the Act. The Supreme Court
further held that this immunity does not violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of
Rights.
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No. C-03-CV-22-000661
Argued: September 5, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

No. 3

September Term, 2024

SUMMER LEDFORD

v.

JENWAY CONTRACTING, INC.

Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Booth,
Biran,
Eaves,
Killough,
Getty, Joseph M.
(Senior Justice, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

Opinion by Eaves, J.
Watts, Biran, and Killough, JJ., dissent.

Filed: July 1, 2025
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal
Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State
Government Article) this document is authentic.

2025.07.01
15:53:40 -04'00'
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
I
INTRODUCTION

This case concerns Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”)

(colloquially referred to as the “Grand Bargain”), 1 codified as Title 9 under the Labor and

Employment Article (“L&E”) of the Maryland Annotated Code (2016 Repl. Vol.). Enacted

over 100 years ago in the age of industrialization, 2 the Act sought to remedy what was then

a new and pervasive problem: the fact that “tort law overwhelmingly favored employers.” 3

Employees who suffered workplace injuries routinely found themselves unable to mount a

successful negligence claim against their employer due to the doctrines of contributory

negligence and assumption of the risk. 4 And because the age of industrialization ushered

in the idea that men served as the primary breadwinners and women as homemakers and

caregivers to children, 5 an injured worker posed a threat to the economic security of the

entire family unit.

The Act aimed to alleviate this societal problem via a legislative quid pro quo (hence

the phrase, Grand Bargain). For employees, their negligence claims against their employers

Dan Friedman, Jackson v. Dackman Co.: The Legislative Modification of Common
1

Law Tort Remedies Under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, 77 Md. L.
Rev. 949, 974 n.122 (2018).
2
1914 Md. Laws, ch. 800; Friedman, supra n.1 at 974.
3
Friedman, supra n.1, at 974.
4
Id.
5
Jill Maxwell, Leveraging the Courts to Protect Women’s Fundamental Rights at
the Intersection of Family-Wage Work Structures and Women’s Role as Wage Earner and
Primary Caregiver, 20 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 127, 131 (2012).
would be removed from the court system (for the most part) and into a “no-fault system[]”

where employers would automatically be liable for the vast majority of workplace injuries. 6

The tradeoff? Employers were assured that, so long as they complied with the Act’s

provisions, their liability would (1) extend to only an injured employee or, in the case of

fatal injuries, the employee’s dependents 7 and (2) be limited to pre-calculated and

determined amounts of compensation. 8

In the case before us, John Ledford was employed by Respondent, Jenway

Contracting, Inc. (“Jenway”). In February 2021, while in the course of his employment,

Mr. Ledford tragically fell from a retaining wall and suffered fatal injuries. At the time of

Mr. Ledford’s death, he was survived by his adult, non-dependent daughter, Petitioner,

Summer Ledford. As a non-dependent, Ms. Ledford was unable to receive death benefits

under the Act, 9 so instead she filed a claim against Jenway under Maryland’s Wrongful

Death Act (“WDA”), codified at § 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article

(“CJP”) of the Maryland Annotated Code (2020 Repl. Vol.).

Jenway moved to dismiss Ms. Ledford’s complaint on the grounds that the Act

limits its liability to two groups of people, injured workers and their dependents, and that

neither of the Act’s two exceptions applied to permit Ms. Ledford’s WDA claim to go

6
Friedman, supra n.1, at 974.
7
From this point forward, for brevity’s sake, we will use the term “employee” in
the context of the Act to refer to both employees and their eligible dependents.
8
See Friedman, supra n.1, at 974.
9
L&E § 9-683(a).
2
forward. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County agreed, dismissing Ms. Ledford’s

complaint, and the Appellate Court affirmed. We issued a writ of certiorari in this case 10

to answer the following questions:

1. Does L&E § 9-509’s exclusivity provision bar a deceased covered employee’s non-

dependent, adult child from pursuing claims against the deceased covered

employee’s employer?

2. If so, does L&E § 9-509 conflict with Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of

Rights? 11

As explained more thoroughly below, absent an applicable exception, L&E § 9-

509’s exclusivity provision bars adult, non-dependent children from filing a claim against

their deceased parent’s employer, and that interpretation does not run afoul of Article 19

of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the

Appellate Court.

10
Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc., 486 Md. 597 (2024).
11
As originally presented to us, Ms. Ledford’s sole question was, “Whether the
lower court erred, given that the General Assembly in its plain language specifically limited
the exclusivity clause to ‘dependents’ in Md. Lab. & Empl. Art. § 9-509, by extending it
to non-dependents.” (Citation modified). We have rephrased that question, as indicated
above. See United Parcel Serv. v. Strothers, 482 Md. 198, 205 (2022). After oral argument,
we instructed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the second question above.
3
II
BACKGROUND

A. The Relevant Law: Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act and Wrongful Death
Act

This case requires us to examine the two statutory provisions noted above: L&E §

9-509 and CJP § 3-904. Specifically, we must determine whether the Act’s exclusivity

provision precludes Ms. Ledford’s action under the WDA. We will begin by laying out

those salient provisions and some notable history.

The Act’s exclusivity provision specifies that an employer’s liability under the title

is “exclusive[,]” L&E § 9-509(a), and that, barring exceptions contained in the Act, the

compensation an employer provides under the Act “to a covered employee or the

dependents of a covered employee is in place of any right of action against any person[,]”

id. § 9-509(b) (emphasis added). In other words, an employee is limited in their recovery

for injuries sustained within the scope of employment, and they are precluded from

bringing any action against an employer. To enjoy this immunity from liability, however,

an employer must “secure compensation in accordance with” the Act, id. § 9-509(c), and

the injury to the employee must not have been caused by the employer’s deliberate act, id.

§ 9-509(d).

A Maryland wrongful death claim is a creature of statute. The WDA originally was

enacted in 1852 to abrogate the common law principle that a personal action died with the

person. 1852 Md. Laws, ch. 299; Wadsworth v. Sharma, 479 Md. 606, 617–18 (2022).

Unlike a survivorship action, a claim under the WDA is not brought in a derivative or

representative capacity, but rather, is brought by aggrieved family members to recover their

4
own loss accruing from the decedent’s death. Spangler v. McQuitty, 449 Md. 33, 54–61

(2016). Prior to 1997, a non-dependent adult child could not bring a wrongful death claim

to recover damages for the death of a parent. The WDA was revised in 1997 to allow, as

in this case, a non-dependent, adult child to sue for the death of a parent. 1997 Md. Laws,

ch. 313; CJP § 3-904(e). Such an action can seek damages for “mental anguish, emotional

pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, care, attention,

advice, counsel, training, education, or guidance where applicable.” CJP § 3-904(e). Most,

if not all, of these types of damages are unavailable under the Act.

B. Procedural History

At the time of Mr. Ledford’s death, Ms. Ledford was not financially dependent on

her father. Ms. Ledford was, therefore, ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits

because she was not a dependent of a covered employee. Roughly one year after her

father’s death, Ms. Ledford instead filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County a

wrongful death claim alleging negligence against Jenway, which she later amended.

Jenway moved to dismiss the amended complaint, 12 arguing that L&E § 9-509(a)–

(b) sets forth both an employer’s exclusive liability and a covered employee’s exclusive

remedy, thereby immunizing Jenway from Ms. Ledford’s wrongful death claim. Ms.

Ledford argued in turn that L&E § 9-509(b) expressly limited the scope of employer

immunity to only two classes of plaintiffs: covered employees and dependents of covered

12
Jenway filed its motion to dismiss in response to Ms. Ledford’s original
complaint. After Ms. Ledford amended her complaint, Jenway filed a line with the circuit
court, indicating that its earlier-filed motion to dismiss was to be construed as its response
to the operative amended complaint.
5
employees. Not belonging to either category, Ms. Ledford argued that the Act posed no

impediment to her wrongful death claim.

After a hearing, the circuit court issued a November 2022 opinion and order in

which it granted Jenway’s motion to dismiss. Relying on this Court’s opinion in Knoche v.

Cox, 282 Md. 447, 453 n.2 (1978), the circuit court concluded “that the broad limitations

on an employer’s liability for work[-]related injuries applie[d] to bar a party’s otherwise

valid wrongful death claim[,]” even though that party “was never eligible for workers’

compensation benefits.” Barring application of either of the Act’s express exceptions, the

circuit court believed that “the structure of the [Act] was intended to govern all claims for

damages arising out of a work-related injury.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the circuit court

dismissed Ms. Ledford’s amended complaint. Ms. Ledford noted a timely appeal.

In a reported opinion, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court.

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc., 259 Md. App. 534, 548 (2023). In reaching that

holding, the Appellate Court looked to the Act’s plain language, the Act’s legislative

purpose, and pertinent case law, reaching the “inescapable conclusion” that an “employer’s

liability and any recovery resulting from that liability are exclusive to the Act, regardless

of whether an otherwise proper wrongful death plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the

Act.” Id. Because Ms. Ledford was not financially dependent on her father, and because

neither of the exceptions to the Act’s exclusivity provision applied, she was barred from

recovery. Id. at 549.

6
III
STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue before this Court involves statutory interpretation, which is a question of

law that we review without deference. See Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Marks-

Sloan, 428 Md. 1, 18 (2012) (citing Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 452 (2005); Collins v.

State, 383 Md. 684, 688 (2004)).

IV
ANALYSIS

The parties’ contentions have remained largely unchanged from the Appellate Court

to this Court. Ms. Ledford notes that, as the non-dependent daughter of the decedent, she

has no right to workers’ compensation death benefits, which are available only to covered

employees, under the Act’s exclusivity provision. Because she has no right to those

benefits, Ms. Ledford argues that she is not limited by the Act’s exclusivity provision and

that the lower courts erred in holding otherwise. Ms. Ledford primarily claims support for

that argument from L&E § 9-509(b), which says that compensation paid pursuant to the

Act “to a covered employee or the dependents of a covered employee is in place of any

right of action against any person.” If the General Assembly intended for the Act’s

exclusivity to apply to all potential litigants, she argues, it would have stopped at L&E §

9-509(a), which states, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this title, the liability of an

employer under this title is exclusive.” This, Ms. Ledford insists, evinces the General

Assembly’s intent to limit the exclusivity clause to actions from only covered employees—

not non-dependent children of covered employees—consistent with the legislative goal of

limiting double recovery.

7
Moving away from the Act’s plain language, Ms. Ledford places weight on the fact

that the Act (including its exclusivity provision) was passed in 1914 and that the WDA was

revised in 1997 to grant non-dependent adult children a cause of action thereunder. 13

According to Ms. Ledford, the 1997 General Assembly, therefore, “knew it was granting

the right to sue to a class of plaintiffs that generally d[id] not have the right to workers’

compensation death benefits[;]” “if [the General Assembly] intended [the Act] to limit this

[then-newly granted] right, it would have so stated.”

Ms. Ledford acknowledges that the Act contemplates and limits the liability of an

employer to non-dependents in L&E § 9-684 but argues that this does not prevent her from

seeking compensation because the costs listed under L&E § 9-684 are reimbursements, not

compensation.

Finally, Ms. Ledford asserts that Jenway’s interpretation of L&E § 9-509 violates

Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because such an interpretation would

deny “an entire class of persons access to the courts, and [a] remedy for [an] injury, as

guaranteed by [Article 19.]”

On the other hand, Jenway makes four arguments that Ms. Ledford is prevented

from recovery via the Act’s exclusivity provision for multiple reasons. First, Jenway says

13
In her brief, Ms. Ledford asserts that the revision to the WDA that granted non-
dependent children the right to file a wrongful death claim for the loss of a parent was
established in the “1999 amendment[.]” We presume, however, that Ms. Ledford intended
to cite to the WDA’s 1997 revision. See 1997 Md. Laws, ch. 318 (noting that Chapter 318
was enacted for the purposes of, among others, “establishing that a beneficiary may be
entitled to noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action for the death of . . . certain
parents of a child who is not a minor child[.]” (emphasis added)).
8
that the exclusivity provision clearly limits an employer’s liability under the Act against

any party so long as the employer complies with the requirements of the Act. Jenway notes

that L&E § 9-509 explicitly lists two situations when an employer does not enjoy the

benefits of exclusivity and that neither exception applies in this case. Second, Jenway posits

that the General Assembly already contemplated scenarios like Ms. Ledford’s when it

enacted L&E § 9-684. Thus, Jenway believes that this provision “provides a clear and

unambiguous answer to the exclusivity provision’s lack of addressing non-dependents.”

Third, Jenway argues that to subject employers to suit outside the Act, when an employer

otherwise has complied with the Act’s requirements, would undo the quid pro quo that the

Grand Bargain was intended to effectuate. Fourth, Jenway argues that its interpretation

does not offend Article 19 for two reasons: (1) the exclusivity provision does not “abrogate

or modify a traditional remedy,” and (2) the Act “created a new process for obtaining a

remedy that is a reasonable restriction on access to the courts and benefits significantly

more Marylanders than it harms.”

For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Jenway’s interpretation of the Act

and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

A. Absent an Explicit Exception Within the Act, an Employer Is Immune from a
Wrongful Death Claim Filed by a Non-Dependent Adult Child

The Act’s history has been well studied by this Court. Enacted in 1914, the Act

“generally requires an employer ‘to pay workers’ compensation benefits to an employee

who suffers an accidental personal injury in the course of employment, regardless of

whether the employer is at fault for the injury.’” Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. at 35 (quoting

9
Franch v. Ankney, 341 Md. 350, 357–58 (1996)). The Act embodies the balance struck by

the General Assembly when “on one hand, the Act took away employees’ rights to sue

employers for negligence, yet, on the other hand it ensured employees the ‘right to quick

and certain compensation for injuries sustained during the course of their employment,

regardless of fault.’” Id. at 36 (quoting Rodrigues-Novo v. Recchi Am., Inc., 381 Md. 49,

56 (2004)). In other words, the Act was created to efficiently and uniformly handle

employment injury claims, ensuring that employees and their families could receive swift

compensation without a burdensome gap in income, and employers could provide that

compensation without fear of costly negligence suits. See, e.g., Polomski v. Mayor & City

Council of Balt., 344 Md. 70, 77 (1996) (“[T]he Act provides employees suffering from

work-related accidental injuries, regardless of fault, with a certain, efficient, and dignified

form of compensation. In exchange, employees abandon common law remedies, thereby

relieving employers from the vagaries of tort liability.”).

To that end, the General Assembly enshrined the lynchpin of the Grand Bargain in

the Act’s exclusivity provision, L&E § 9-509, which details both the limitations on an

employer’s liability and an employee’s right to compensation. “The rationale behind the

exclusivity rule is that ‘the employer has undertaken the burden of supplying workmen’s

compensation insurance in return for immunity from suit.’” Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. at 38

(quoting Hauch v. Connor, 295 Md. 120, 127 (1983)). This provision is the subject of the

case at hand, and, in examining it and other related provisions throughout the Act, we apply

our well-established principles of statutory interpretation. As we recently noted:

10
“The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and
effectuate” the General Assembly’s purpose and intent when it enacted the
statute. Hollingsworth v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, 448 Md. 648, 655
(2016). “We assume that the General Assembly’s intent is ‘expressed in the
statutory language’ and therefore begin our analysis with the plain language
of the statute.” Spevak, 480 Md. at 571–72 (quoting Moore v. RealPage Util.
Mgmt., Inc., 476 Md. 501, 510 (2021)). We begin this task by looking to the
normal, plain meaning of the text, “ensur[ing] that no word, clause, sentence
or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.” Id.
at 572 (quoting Moore, 476 Md. at 510).

And while we focus on the statute’s plain text, we avoid reading
“statutory language in a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly our interpretation
of a statute’s plain language to the isolated section alone.” Lockshin v.
Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 275 (2010). Instead, we analyze the statutory scheme
as a whole, considering the “purpose, aim or policy of the [General
Assembly] reflected in that statute.” McClanahan v. Wash. Cnty. Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 445 Md. 691, 701 (2015) (quoting Motor Vehicle Admin. v.
Shrader, 324 Md. 454, 463 (1991)). The Court avoids constructions that are
“illogical, unreasonable, or inconsistent with common sense.” Spevak, 480
Md. at 572. If we are satisfied that the statute’s plain language is
unambiguous and clearly communicates the General Assembly’s intent, then
our inquiry ends, “and we apply the plain meaning of the statute.”
Hollingsworth, 448 Md. at 655 (quoting McClanahan, 445 Md. at 701).

Zukowski v. Anne Arundel County, 490 Md. 243, 264–65 (2025).

Additionally, because we are analyzing the relationship between one section of a

much larger statutory scheme (L&E § 9-509) and a standalone provision (CJP § 3-904),

we must “try to read [the] statutes in harmony, so that all provisions can be given

reasonable effect.” Yox v. Tru-Rol Co., 380 Md. 326, 337 (2004) (citing Balt. Gas & Elec.

Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 305, Md. 145, 157 (1986)). Indeed, “[w]e presume that

the [General Assembly] intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent and

harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a

statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope.” Marks-Sloan,

11
428 Md. at 19 (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of St. Mary’s Cnty. v. Marcas, L.L.C., 415

Md. 676, 685 (2010)).

Lastly, as a remedial statute, we construe the Act “as liberally in favor of the injured

employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its benevolent purposes.”

United Parcel Serv. v. Strothers, 482 Md. 198, 213 (2022) (quoting Montgomery County

v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 61 (2011)). While mindful of that remedial purpose, we still must

exercise judicial restraint and avoid “stifl[ing] the plain meaning of the Act . . . so that the

injured worker may prevail.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Deibler, 423 Md. at 61).

We begin our analysis with the exclusivity provision. The relevant portions of the

provision read:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the liability of an employer
under this title is exclusive.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the compensation provided
under this title to a covered employee or the dependents of a covered
employee is in place of any right of action against any person.

L&E § 9-509(a)–(b). Both subsections (a) and (b) begin with some key words: “[e]xcept

as otherwise provided in this title[.]” Id. (emphasis added). This prefatory language makes

plain that any exceptions to an employer’s liability or an injured employee’s compensation

will be found within the Act itself. Thus, absent an explicit exception in the Act, no other

statutory provision can expand or shrink either an employer’s liability or an employee’s

rights.

And L&E § 9-509 does just that. In the exclusivity provision itself, the statute states

that, should an employer “fail[] to secure compensation in accordance with [the Act],” and

12
should an employee sustain an injury or death, an employee (or representative) may bring

either a “claim for compensation under [the Act]” or “an action for damages.” 14 L&E § 9-

509(c)(1). Even if an employer complies with the Act, § 9-509 still affords an employee

(or representative) the same option if an employee is injured or killed as a result of an

employer’s deliberate act. Id. § 9-509(d).

Ms. Ledford agrees that neither exception applies here. She instead argues that L&E

§ 9-509(b) prohibits only “a covered employee or the dependents of a covered employee”

from bringing an action against an employer outside of the Act. Because non-dependent

children are not mentioned in that subsection, Ms. Ledford believes that they are not subject

to that prohibition. Yet, as noted above, the prefatory language of L&E § 9-509(a) permits

an exception to an employer’s limited liability only to the extent that it explicitly is stated

in the Act. Therefore, despite the Act’s silence as to non-dependents in subsection (b), Ms.

Ledford cannot point to—and we cannot find—any other exception within the Act that

extends an employer’s liability to an adult, non-dependent child’s wrongful death claim.

We also note that subsection (a) speaks in absolute terms: “[T]he liability of an

employer under this title is exclusive.” Id. § 9-509(a) (emphases added). “Exclusive”

means, “[l]imited to a particular person, group, entity, or thing.” Exclusive, Black’s Law

Dictionary (12th ed. 2024); see also exclusive, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

14
In such an instance, the employer’s failure to secure the required compensation
carries with it an additional penalty: In an action brought pursuant to subsection (c), an
employer is barred from utilizing as a defense the employee’s assumption of the risk, the
employee’s contributory negligence, or another employee’s negligence. L&E § 9-
509(c)(2).
13
(11th ed. 2020) (noting definitions of “excluding or having power to exclude[;]” “excluding

other from participation[;]” “single, sole[;]” “whole, undivided”). In L&E § 9-509(a),

“exclusive” modifies “liability,” which is further modified by “under this title.” Thus, the

plain language makes clear that an employer’s liability is limited to that found only within

the Act itself and extends no further. 15

That L&E § 9-509(b) mentions only “a covered employee or the dependents of a

covered employee” does not limit the broad immunity granted under subsection (a). Rather,

subsection (b) does its own work. Start with the plain language. That subsection states that

the “compensation provided under this title to a covered employee . . . is in place of any

right of action against any person.” L&E § 9-509(b) (emphasis added). Notably, the statute

does not state that compensation provided to a covered employee is in place of any right

15
Contrary to Justice Killough’s assertion, we do not “elevate[ the word] ‘exclusive’
into a freestanding shield[.]” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 15. Rather, we give effect
to the entirety of L&E § 9-509(a). That subsection’s prefatory clause—in conjunction with
the word “exclusive”—signals the General Assembly’s intent that a compliant employer’s
liability extends no further than the bounds of the Act itself. Justice Killough argues that
“[n]owhere in L&E § 9-509 has the General Assembly expressly extended that exclusivity
to bar non-dependent children from suing for their parent’s wrongful death.” Id. at 13. But
it is hard to imagine how the General Assembly’s grant of immunity could be any clearer
or broader. The General Assembly specifically stated that exceptions to an employer’s
liability must be stated within the Act itself and that the employer’s liability “under this
title[,]” i.e., when the event at issue concerns a covered employee’s injury or death, is
exclusive. L&E § 9-509(a). The word “exclusive” is not further modified or constrained to
a particular claimant, and it is not the job of this Court to supply such a restriction. Indeed,
if the General Assembly truly wanted a compliant employer’s immunity to extend only to
specific individuals, such as those entitled to compensation under the Act, i.e., to
employees and their dependents, then it easily could have done so by specifying that the
employer’s liability in L&E §9-509(a) is “exclusive as to a covered employee and a
covered employee’s dependents.” That L&E § 9-509(a)’s grant of immunity is not so
limited is persuasive evidence that the General Assembly intended for the employer’s
immunity to apply broadly.
14
of action by a covered employee or a covered employee’s dependent. The compensation

stands in place of any cause of action against any person. The phrase “cause of action” is

not so limited to one filed by only a covered employee. 16

As noted, L&E § 9-509(b) also contains the same prefatory language as subsection

(a), noting that the rule contained therein applies “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this

title[.]” L&E § 9-509(b). And of course, the Act then provides an exception for when a

covered employee may obtain compensation outside the Act: when an injury is sustained

based on the conduct of a third party, i.e., someone “other than” the covered employee’s

employer. Id. § 9-901. Where a covered employee has sustained injuries attributable to a

third party, L&E § 9-901 gives the covered employee the option between obtaining

compensation under the Act or bringing “an action for damages against the person liable

for the injury or death[.]” Id. § 9-901(2). And where a third party is responsible for a

covered employee’s injury or death, the Act provides for subrogation principles that ensure

that an employer, its insurer, the Subsequent Injury Fund, and/or the Uninsured Employers’

Fund is not left un-indemnified. See generally id. § 9-902.

The plain language of L&E § 9-509 is reason alone to reject Ms. Ledford’s

interpretation of the Act, but we typically do not interpret one section of a much larger

16
In her dissent, Justice Watts reaches the opposite conclusion, stating that the
“compensation provided under the Act to a covered employee and a covered employee’s
dependents takes the place of any right of action a covered employee or the covered
employee’s dependents have against any person for accidental personal injury.”
Dissenting Op. of Watts, J., at 7 (emphasis added). As we explain above, the plain language
of L&E § 9-509(b) does not evince that the “cause of action” referenced is so limited to
one filed only by a covered employee or dependent.
15
statutory scheme in a vacuum. See Zukowski, 490 Md. at 264–65. To that end, we turn to

the Act’s provisions that establish when and to what extent an employer is liable to non-

dependents—the class of individuals to which Ms. Ledford belongs. L&E § 9-684 states,

in relevant part, that when “there are no dependents, the liability of an employer or its

insurer shall be limited to[]” medical costs and funeral benefits. L&E § 9-684(1)–(2). L&E

§ 9-689(c) then further details that liability: “If there are no dependents, the employer or

its insurer shall pay the expenses of the last sickness and funeral expenses of the covered

employee.” The rest of L&E § 9-689 implements limitations on the amount for which the

employer is liable. Id. § 9-689(a)–(b). The plain language of L&E § 9-684 specifically

states that, when a covered employee dies without dependents, the employer’s (or its

insurer’s) “liability” is “limited to” medical costs and funeral benefits. Like with the “cause

of action” in L&E § 9-509(b), the “liability under L&E § 9-684 is not then further limited

or modified by the phrase “with respect to a covered employee or a covered employee’s

dependents.” Thus, the phrase “limited to[]” indicates that—in all instances—an

employer’s liability when there are no dependents will not exceed what is provided for in

L&E § 9-684.

From L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689, the General Assembly specifically contemplated

situations where a covered employee dies without dependents. In that instance, the General

Assembly ensured that no one else, i.e. non-dependents, would be burdened with any sort

of expense (medical or burial) for a covered employee’s work-related fatality. That the Act

contemplates people in Ms. Ledford’s shoes is persuasive evidence that she—and others

16
similarly situated—were not forgotten when the Grand Bargain was struck. Indeed, they

were intentionally considered and incorporated into the Act.

Ms. Ledford argues that funds paid pursuant to L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689 do not

qualify as “compensation” because they are merely reimbursements that may or may not

pass through the hands of the non-dependent individual. We find her argument

unconvincing. To begin, Ms. Ledford argues that it is a “well settled notion that payment

of an expense does not ‘compensate,’ because reimbursing an expense is different than

safeguarding dependents from the financial peril occasioned by the death of a bread winner

by paying weekly death benefits.” While Ms. Ledford does not explicitly make this

connection, we assume that the term “compensation,” which she finds so critical to her

position, is drawn from L&E § 9-509, which specifies that “the compensation provided

under this title to a covered employee or the dependents of a covered employee is in place

of any right of action against any person.” L&E § 9-509(a)–(b) (emphasis added).

Ms. Ledford’s focus on the word “compensation” is misguided for several reasons.

First, Ms. Ledford cites to University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. v. Erie Insurance

Exchange where the Appellate Court stated:

The word “compensation” itself has more than one meaning as used
throughout the [Act]. In various places within the [Act], ‘compensation’ has
the limited meaning of the payments ordered in accordance with the
schedules . . . for permanent total disability, temporary total disability, or
permanent or temporary partial disability, as distinguished from various
other benefits awardable by the Commission. In other places throughout the
[Act], however, the [General Assembly] used the word “compensation” in its
broad sense, referring to all benefits provided in the article, which would
include medical benefits as well as rehabilitation.

17
89 Md. App. 204, 211–12 (1991) (footnote omitted) (citing Uninsured Emps’. Fund v.

Booker, 13 Md. App. 591 (1971)). Ultimately, however, because “[p]ayment of medical

bills incurred for treatment rendered in the past[] . . . is not necessary for the injured

worker’s survival or well-being during the appeal process[,]” the Appellate Court held that

such medical treatment did not qualify as compensation. Id. at 216. Ms. Ledford zeroes in

on the Appellate Court’s distinction between payment of medical bills and payment for

loss of financial support and draws an analogy between the former in that case, and the

medical and funeral costs contemplated in L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689. And while the court

in Erie ultimately held that pre-hearing medical expenses did not qualify as

“compensation,” that was a narrow holding which, as the quoted language above makes

clear, does not define “compensation” throughout the Act, and, in fact, says nothing about

the meaning within L&E § 9-509.

Second, by focusing on the term “compensation,” Ms. Ledford misses the forest for

the trees. The emphasis on this word, especially when it has multiple meanings within the

Act, ignores the fact that the General Assembly clearly contemplated Ms. Ledford’s exact

scenario, ultimately deciding to provide either direct payment for certain services or

reimbursement for those services. See L&E §§ 9-684, 9-689. And it is irrelevant whether

an employer elects to reimburse a non-dependent child for expenses incurred or pay

medical providers and funeral homes directly. What is relevant is that the General

Assembly did not want to saddle grieving, non-dependent individuals with funeral and

medical costs, and it accomplished this by providing a legislative avenue for relieving said

individuals of that burden. Thus, we agree with the Appellate Court’s conclusion in this

18
case that “[b]y including those provisions, the [General Assembly] signaled that the Act

was exclusive to dependents and non-dependents alike.” Ledford, 259 Md. App. at 551. 17

For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the plain language of L&E § 9-509 is

unambiguous in that a compliant employer’s liability for a covered employee’s work-

related injuries or death extends no further than what is provided in the Act itself. Because

the Act does not authorize adult non-dependent children of a covered employee to file a

wrongful death action for a work-related death of a parent, employers are not subject to

such liability.

Our caselaw also supports our plain language analysis that the exclusivity provision

shields compliant employers from liability external to the Act. For instance, in Victory

Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks, a minor received a judgment for damages after she

17
We do not “attempt[] to reframe burial expenses as a form of ‘compensation’ or
‘restitution.’” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 22 (footnote omitted). Rather, it is Ms.
Ledford who uses those terms in arguing that L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689 do not provide her
the compensation to which she believes she is otherwise is entitled. Nor do we “treat the
payment of a funeral bill as a legal substitute for wrongful death damages[.]” Id. at 23. We
discuss L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689 simply to highlight that the 1914 General Assembly that
enacted the Act specifically considered what would happen if a covered employee died in
the course of employment without dependents. The 1914 General Assembly’s solution was
to ensure that non-dependents (or any other person or entity) did not incur a financial
burden with the passing of a covered employee. The immunity that the General Assembly
afforded compliant employers has remained as broad as the day it was enacted. That the
General Assembly has not seen fit—even in the wake of extending the WDA to people in
Ms. Ledford’s position—to limit that immunity within the Act itself is evidence that they
did not intend the WDA’s 1997 expansion to serve as a limitation on the over-100-year-
old immunity afforded to compliant employers. Our decision, therefore, does not “elevat[e]
a minimal reimbursement mechanism into a full bar against otherwise valid claims, id.;
rather, it adheres to our traditional canons of statutory interpretation by faithfully applying
the plain language of a statute and harmonizing the many sections within a much larger
statutory scheme, see, e.g., Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. at 18–19.
19
developed phosphorous poisoning while working for a fireworks company. 147 Md. 368,

371 (1925). This Court held that the Act was the minor’s exclusive remedy and that she

could not recover in common law, as her injury arose out of the scope of her employment.

Id. at 376. Specifically, this Court said:

[W]henever this Court has spoken on any phase of this subject, it has
uniformly said that, aside from the exceptions created by the act itself, the
operation of the law is exclusive of all other remedy and liability, with
respect to both the employer and employee, . . ., in regard to all injury arising
out of and in the course of the employment.

Id. at 375 (emphases added) (citation omitted). In other words, when a covered employee

is injured within the scope of their employment, the exclusivity clause is triggered, such

that an employer’s liability is automatically limited to the remedies and exclusions found

within the Act itself. We have reiterated this principle in many subsequent cases. See, e.g.,

Lowery v. McCormick Asbestos Co., 300 Md. 28, 49 (1984) (describing the “time-honored

principle of exclusivity from liability by any other remedy for disabilities caused by the

environment in the workplace”); Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 327 Md. 275, 279 (1992)

(noting that, aside from very narrow exceptions, “workers’ compensation is the exclusive

remedy of the injured employee and his dependents against an employer for an injury or

death”); Marks-Sloan, 428 Md. at 14 (noting that “an injured employee’s sole remedy

against his or her employer for an accidental personal injury sustained during the course of

employment is through the . . . Act[]”).

And while the question before us is a novel one, this is not the first time that this

Court has examined the Act’s exclusivity provision and its relationship to the WDA.

20
In Knoche v. Cox, a dental assistant was negligently shot and killed at work when

the dentist was showing a pistol to an interested patient. 282 Md. at 449. The assistant’s

husband filed a wrongful death action against the dentist, but we held that the incident arose

out of the decedent’s employment, and, therefore, the dentist’s liability was limited by the

exclusivity provision of the Act. Id. at 457–58. Specifically, we said:

This Court, long past and to the present day, has uniformly said that,
aside from the exceptions created by the Act itself, the operation of the law
is exclusive of all other remedy and liability, as to both the employer and
employee who come within the purview of the Act, with respect to all injury
arising out of and in the course of employment.

Id. at 452–53 (emphases added) (citing Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co., 147 Md. at

375). 18

The Appellate Court then reiterated this principle in Austin v. Thrifty Diversified,

Inc., a case in which the parents of a deceased covered employee brought a wrongful death

action after their son died on his employer’s premises when using company equipment

18
In his dissent, Justice Killough faults us for relying on Victory Sparkler &
Specialty Co. and Knoche because, while those cases “contain broad statements about the
[Act’s] exclusivity to other rights and remedies,” those statements were “pure dicta because
those cases did not concern ‘rights or remedies’ outside the [Act] and were not necessary
for resolution of those cases.” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 21. Justice Killough further
notes that “those statements must be viewed in the context in which they were made: where
the injury or death is compensable under the [Act] and the plaintiff is a dependent or
covered employee within the [Act’s] remedial scope.” Id. Justice Killough is correct that
those cases contain broad statements about the law, but that is because the law—L&E § 9-
509—speaks broadly, just as the General Assembly intended. Those cases described the
broad immunity granted to compliant employers. See Victor Sparkler & Specialty Co., 147
Md. at 375; Knoche, 282 Md. at 452–53. That immunity is not contingent on simply who
files suit. And we further agree with Justice Killough that neither Victory Sparkler &
Specialty Co. nor Knoche resolved the precise issue implicated by this case, but that is why
those cases, and the statements from them on which we rely, supplement our plain language
analysis, rather than replace it.
21
after hours. 76 Md. App. 150, 152–54 (1988). 19 The court held that the decedent’s death

arose out of and in the course of employment and that the Act was, therefore, the exclusive

remedy. Id. at 159, 164. In an observation that is especially salient to the case at hand, the

Appellate Court noted: “[U]nless the personal injury did not arise out of or in the course of

employment, [the parents of the deceased covered employee] may not maintain [a]

wrongful death action.” Id. at 156. That is, once a covered employee is injured or killed in

19
Justice Killough also takes issue with our discussion of Austin because the
Appellate Court did not “discuss the statutory basis for the parents’ claim other than to
state that the complaint in that case alleged negligence, a failure to supervise and warn, and
a violation of the [then-current] Maryland Occupational Safety Act[.]” Dissenting Op. of
Killough, J., at 21–22. We agree that, in Austin, the Appellate Court did not cite the WDA
by statute, but there is little room for doubt that the parents’ negligence claim in that case
was anything but a wrongful death action. See Austin, 76 Md. App. at 152 (“Appellants
brought suit against appellee for the wrongful death of their son.” (emphasis added)), 156
(“[U]nless the personal injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment,
appellants may not maintain this wrongful death action.” (emphasis added)). Even if the
parents in Austin had filed a wrongful death claim, Justice Killough believes that, at the
time of Austin

the parents were only eligible to recover solatium damages if the decedent
was unmarried and under the age of 22 or the parents contributed more than
50% of the decedent’s support. That is no longer the law, as CJP § 3-904(e),
as amended in 1997, closes that remedial gap. Thus, if Austin was decided
today, the parents could recover solatium damages under the WDA
notwithstanding the requirements of CJP § 3-904(d).

Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 22 (citation omitted). But it is unclear how the state of
damages attainable under the WDA at the time of Austin has any relevance to this appeal.
Austin stands for the proposition that if—and only if—it was determined that the decedent’s
accidental death occurred outside the scope of his employment, i.e., so that the Act was
inapplicable, could the parents in that case recover. Austin, 76 Md. App. at 156. Because
the Appellate Court held that the decedent’s death “arose out of and in the course of
employment[,]” the parents’ “exclusive remedy [wa]s under the . . . Act.” Id. at 164.
22
the course of employment, the Act automatically becomes the sole means for recovery,

regardless of whether a wrongful death action might otherwise be appropriate. 20

We agree with Ms. Ledford that one of the General Assembly’s goals in fashioning

the exclusivity provision was to prevent double recovery. See, e.g., Marks-Sloan, 428 Md.

at 14 (“The purpose of the exclusivity rule is to ensure swift compensation to the injured

employee and to prevent a double recovery, through a workers’ compensation award and

a tort judgment, from an employer by an injured employee.”). Double recovery is, however,

one side of the coin, as there can be no recovery without a reciprocal liability. If the General

Assembly wanted to eliminate the possibility that an injured worker could be compensated

twice for the same injury, then surely the General Assembly was concerned with the other

side of the coin: double liability. In that regard, the General Assembly also was concerned

with the potential for an employer paying twice for a single incident. If we were to hold

that a non-dependent child of a deceased covered employee is not subject to the exclusivity

provision, it is easy to imagine a scenario in which a covered employee, with both

dependent and non-dependent children, dies while acting within the scope of their

employment. The dependent children, covered by the Act, are limited to the liability

contained therein, and receive the compensation afforded them by the Act. The non-

dependent children, not covered by the Act, could still bring a wrongful death claim,

20
We emphasize that even though the Act automatically becomes the sole means
for recovery in such an instance, this does not mean that an employer is automatically
liable. An employer may still, for instance, dispute whether an incident occurred within the
scope of employment before they are required to provide compensation in accordance with
the Act’s terms.
23
forcing the employer to pay twice for the same event—the latter of which was a situation

that the Grand Bargain sought to eliminate. 21 While Ms. Ledford herself does not pose a

risk of double recovery on the narrow facts of this case because Mr. Ledford did not also

leave behind any dependents, we must look at the broader implications of our holding. In

doing so, we cannot align what she asks with the intent of the General Assembly. 22

21
We recognize and agree with Justice Killough that the types of compensation
afforded by the Act are economic in nature while those afforded under the WDA are non-
economic in nature. CJP § 3-904(e) (allowing for recovery on things such as “mental
anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection,
care, attention, advice, counsel, training, education, or guidance where applicable”). But
we do not share Justice Killough’s view that the Act’s exclusivity provision “protects
employers from double recovery of the same remedy, not from parallel obligations arising
under separate statutory schemes compensating distinct injuries to different classes of
survivors.” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 30–31. As we have noted, part of what
employers gained under the Grand Bargain was the reassurance that—if compliant—they
would be free from the sort of non-economic damages contemplated by the WDA and other
routine negligence cases. See, e.g., Polomski, 344 Md. at 77. Thus, in a world where a
covered employee dies, leaving behind both dependents and non-dependents, an
employer—under traditional tort principles—perhaps would not be paying twice for the
same type of damages. Under the carefully crafted system of workers’ compensation,
however, the employer would be paying twice given that the General Assembly has assured
compliant employers that its liability extends no further than the Act, which, as we have
discussed, provides only for quick, assured, economic damages. See, e.g., Marks-Sloan,
428 Md. at 36–37.
Additionally, like Justice Killough, we agree that one of the Act’s many
compromises was “the need, of both employers and employees, to avoid expensive and
unpredictable litigation over accidents in the workplace.” DeBusk v. Johns Hopkins Hosp.,
342 Md. 432, 438 (1996) (citing Richard P. Gilbert & Robert L. Humphreys, Jr., Maryland
Workers’ Compensation Handbook §§ 1.0–1.2 (2d ed. 1993 & Supp.1996)); see also
Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 9. The benefit of an employer’s bargain would be
eliminated if it complied with the Act but nevertheless found itself subject to such
expensive and unpredictable litigation.
22
Ms. Ledford’s suggested interpretation also produces results at odds with the spirit
of the Act. As noted, the WDA allows a non-dependent child to obtain non-economic
damages. See supra n.21; see also CJP § 3-904(e). These types of damages are not available
to dependents under the Act; instead, death benefits under the Act are determined by things
24
Lastly, we construe statutes in harmony whenever possible. We have previously

stated on multiple occasions that the Act and the WDA, construed together, present no

conflict. See, e.g., Knoche, 282 Md. at 453 n.2 (“There is nothing in conflict between the .

. . Act and the [WDA] . . . . The two acts are in pari materia and must be construed

together.”); Powell v. Erb, 349 Md. 791, 801–02 (1998) (“[I]t is well settled that there is

nothing in conflict between the . . . Act and the [WDA]. They both unquestionably deal

with recovery for injuries resulting in death. The two acts are in pari materia and must be

construed together.”) (citations omitted)). 23 Unless an employer has not complied with the

such as the deceased employee’s wages at the time of death, a dependent’s level of
dependency (either partial or permanent), and the number of dependents. L&E §§ 9-681–
9-683, 9-683.3, 9-683.5. Yet under Ms. Ledford’s interpretation of the Act, a non-
dependent child could secure more compensation via a favorable judgment for a wrongful
death claim than her dependent counterparts who would not be entitled to receive the type
of damages that the WDA contemplates. While the General Assembly considered both
dependents and non-dependents when it fashioned the Grand Bargain, the General
Assembly paid particular attention (understandably so) to dependents. We seriously doubt
that the General Assembly intended those not financially dependent on a deceased covered
employee to potentially recover more than those who were financially dependent on the
deceased covered employee and are otherwise covered by the Act. See Zukowski, 490 Md.
at 268 (rejecting an interpretation of the Act that would allow attorneys for injured workers
to collect a fee that would entirely or substantially consume an injured worker’s award of
compensation). The consideration of absurd and illogical results is one of our longstanding
principles of statutory construction, see id. at 265, not a “policy objection[,]” Dissenting
Op. of Killough, J., at 27.
23
Justice Killough argues in his dissent that our interpretation creates conflict with
one of the WDA’s provisions, CJP § 3-904(g). Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 16–19.
That provision provides a general three-year statute of limitations for a wrongful death
plaintiff to bring their claim. CJP § 3-904(g)(1). But there is an exception if a decedent dies
from an “occupational disease,” which “means a disease caused by exposure to any toxic
substance in the person’s workplace and contracted by a person in the course of the
person’s employment.” Id. § 3-904(g)(2)(i). In that scenario, a wrongful death plaintiff
must file their claim within 10 years of the decedent’s death or within three years “of the
date when the cause of death was discovered, whichever is the shorter.” Id. § 3-
25
requirements of the Act or has intentionally caused a covered employee’s injury or death

(neither of which apply here), liability under the Act is the employer’s exclusive liability

for injury and death arising out of the course of employment. Because the Act does not

make Jenway liable to Ms. Ledford, except to the extent of any medical costs and funeral

904(g)(2)(ii). According to Justice Killough, CJP § 3-904(g) clearly “signal[s] that a
wrongful death action may arise even when the decedent was a covered employee, and the
exposure occurred in the workplace – potentially implicating either the employer or third-
parties.” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 17. Ultimately, Justice Killough believes that,
in enacting CJP § 3-904(g), “the General Assembly deliberately preserved wrongful death
causes of action in the occupational disease context, particularly for adult non-dependent
children . . . who otherwise receive no [w]orkers’ [c]ompensation benefits.” Id. at 18
(emphases added).
We disagree with Justice Killough’s conclusion. What is currently CJP § 3-
904(g)(2) was enacted for “the purpose of providing an exception for a death caused by an
occupational disease to the general statute of limitations for filing an action for wrongful
death[.]” 1986 Md. Laws, ch. 374. The preamble to Chapter 374 further states:

WHEREAS, As a matter of fundamental fairness, a cause of action should
not be deemed to have accrued until the date that knowledge of the wrong
upon which the action is based is discovered or should be discovered; and

WHEREAS, Enactment of this section will provide full protection to the
dependents of persons who have died as the result of the wrongful act of
another[.]

Id. (emphasis added). Chapter 374, thus, makes clear that the General Assembly was
concerned with dependents—not adult non-dependent children—and said nothing about a
child’s (dependent or otherwise) parent’s employer or the preservation of wrongful death
claims. Instead, we agree with Justice Killough’s own astute observation that subsection
(g)(2) does work by applying to third-party suppliers who may cause a covered employee
to experience an occupational disease at the covered employee’s own place of business.
Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 17. Because such a scenario would be based on the
negligent acts of a third party, the Act authorizes a covered employee’s dependents to
pursue a wrongful death action against that third party, triggering the Act’s subrogation
principles. See L&E §§ 9-509(b), 9-901.
26
expenses she may have incurred, she is barred from bringing a wrongful death action

against Jenway.

In his dissent, Justice Killough argues that our decision today runs contrary to two

of our past decisions: Mummert v. Alizadeh, 435 Md. 207 (2013), and Taylor v. State, Use

of Mears, 233 Md. 406 (1964). Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 24–26. Neither case

conflicts with our holding. 24

In Mummert, we held that a decedent’s failure to bring a medical negligence claim

during her lifetime within the applicable statute of limitations did not bar her surviving

family from filing a wrongful death suit after her passing. 435 Md. at 210. In reaching that

conclusion, we noted that the General Assembly’s purpose in passing the WDA “was to

compensate the families of the decedents, as opposed to the estates of the decedents,” and

that the General Assembly “intended the [WDA] to be a new cause of action, separate and

independent largely from the decedent’s own negligence or other action or a survival

action, meant to preserve an action [of] the decedent[.]” Id. at 219. In other words, the

WDA was intended to “allow ‘a spouse, parent, or child, or a secondary beneficiary who

was wholly dependent on the decedent, to recover damages for his or her own loss accruing

from the decedent’s death.’” Id. at 220 (quoting Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. 72, 82 (1997)).

24
Justice Killough agrees that Mummert and Taylor “involved different factual
scenarios than this case” and that “distinctions can be drawn.” Dissenting Op. of Killough,
J., at 25. To Justice Killough, however, our careful distinguishing of Mummert and Taylor
“[is] of no moment[]” because “[w]hat matters is not the factual symmetry in our previous
decisions, but rather the legal propositions that those cases establish[.]” Id. We could not
disagree more. As our discussion of Mummert and Taylor will reveal, the factual
distinctions make all the difference, and those decisions do not stand for the legal
propositions for which Justice Killough cites them.
27
We also are not inclined to ignore the portion of our opinion in Mummert where we

specifically recognized that certain “defenses” to the decedent’s own cause of action could

be a defense to an otherwise valid wrongful death claim. Our opinion in Mummert

recognized at least five different cases where we previously held that a particular defense

could preclude an otherwise valid wrongful death claim: Smith v. Gross, 319 Md. 138

(1990) (parental immunity); Frazee v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., 255 Md. 627 (1969)

(contributory negligence); State ex rel. Bond v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light and

Power Co., 146 Md. 390 (1924) (no privity of contract between decedent and

manufacturer); State ex rel. Melitch v. United Railways and Electric Co. of Baltimore, 121

Md. 457 (1913) (release of liability); Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Co. v. State ex rel.

Abbott, 75 Md. 152 (1892) (assumption of risk). Mummert, 435 Md. at 221. As relevant

here, after directly citing some of the above cases, including Smith, which concerned

parental immunity, we stated in Mummert:

Those defenses are distinguishable from [the] statute of limitations defense
[at issue in Mummert], however, because, where those defenses apply, the
decedent did not have a viable claim from the outset. Thus, the [WDA’s]
requirement of an act “which would have entitled the party injured to
maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued” barred the
wrongful death claims in those instances.

Id.

Thus, Mummert stands merely for the proposition that a decedent’s failure to comply

with an applicable statute of limitations for what would have been her own cause of action

is not a limitation on a future wrongful death plaintiff. Our opinion in Mummert recognized

several limitations on a decedent’s ability to bring a claim that also apply to a wrongful

28
death claimant. Even Mr. Ledford would have been barred from suing Jenway in an action

for negligence based on Jenway’s immunity under the Act; thus, Mummert actually

supports the conclusion that Ms. Ledford herself is barred from suing Jenway. See

Mummert, 435 Md. at 221; see also Smith, 319 Md. at 149 (holding that the parent-child

immunity was applicable in that case and noting that “[t]he only prerequisite for the

prosecution of the [wrongful death] action[] authorized is the entitlement of the injured

decedent to maintain the respective action and recover damages if death had not ensued[]”

and that, had the General Assembly “intended that the judicially created parent-child

immunity rule be excepted from the legislatively created survival and wrongful death

actions, it has had ample opportunity to say so[]”). 25

Our decision also does not conflict with Taylor. In Taylor, the decedent was killed

in the course of his employment due to the negligence of third parties who were

independent of the decedent’s employer. 233 Md. at 407. The decedent was survived by

25
To be sure, in Mummert, we stated: “We hold that the [General Assembly] did
not intend to define ‘wrongful act’ so as to render a wrongful death claim contingent on
the decedent’s ability to file timely a tort claim prior to death.” 435 Md. at 210 (emphasis
added). But that statement simply reflects Mummert’s holding, as we have described it:
that a decedent’s inability to file a timely negligence claim does not bar a future wrongful
death plaintiff from bringing their own independent cause of action under the wrongful
death statute. That statement does not, as Justice Killough believes, support the proposition
that “a beneficiary may maintain a wrongful death suit even if the decedent could not or
did not sue in [their] lifetime.” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 26 (emphasis added).
While a decedent’s failure to file a suit or untimely file a suit—on its own—certainly could
not bar a future wrongful death plaintiff, Mummert specifically recognized, as we noted
above, the various instances where a decedent’s inability to sue (due to certain immunities
or affirmative defenses) would preclude a future wrongful death action. That Justice
Killough does not meaningfully confront those critical portions of our opinion in Mummert
is telling.
29
children born to a prior marriage, as well as children he fathered with a woman who was

not his wife, but with whom he lived at the time of this death. Id. We specifically noted

that the decedent’s children born out of wedlock were in fact dependents covered under the

Act, even though he also had surviving children born during a prior marriage. Id. at 410.

We then went on to examine whether the children born out of wedlock rightly

recovered against the third parties in addition to their compensation received under the Act,

turning to the subrogation section (L&E § 9-901), 26 which specifically addresses that

situation. Id. at 409–13. We held that L&E § 9-901 “enlarge[s] the persons who may take

the benefit of the liability already existing and created by [the Act].” Id. at 412 (quoting

Storrs v. Mech, 166 Md. 124, 132 (1934)). Thus, we simply recognized in Taylor that L&E

§ 9-901 authorizes a dependent of a decedent to bring suit against an independent third

party, even when that dependent is also able to recover benefits under the Act. Id. at 409–

13; see also L&E §§ 9-901, 9-902. In other words, the filing of the wrongful death action

in that case was an exception “otherwise provided in” the Act, as referenced in L&E § 9-

509(b), which permits suit outside of the means for recovery delineated by the Act.

Notably, we highlighted that if the children born out of wedlock in question had not

been dependents entitled to compensation under the Act, they likewise would not have

been able to sue pursuant to the exception found in the Act’s subrogation section. Taylor,

233 Md. at 413. Unlike the dependent children in Taylor, Ms. Ledford is not subject to the

At the time of Taylor, the subrogation principles were contained in Article 101 §
26

58 (1964 Repl. Vol.).
30
subrogation exception because she is not a dependent as defined in the Act, and, therefore,

she may not bring a wrongful death claim against Jenway.

Justice Killough recognizes that Taylor involved the subrogation principles outlined

in the Act but believes that distinction to be “beside the point.” Dissenting Op. of Killough,

J., at 24. But, as we previously noted, see supra n.23, the facts make all the difference. The

facts of Taylor were cabined to the Act itself: the decedent was killed by a third party, 233

Md. at 407, and the law permitted the dependents in Taylor—even after an award under

the Act—to file a wrongful death claim, L&E § 9-902(c); the law simply would have

required the dependents to reimburse any funds previously paid under the Act, id. § 9-

902(e), (g). Thus, contrary to Justice Killough’s assertion, Taylor did not “reject[]

categorical displacement of the WDA by the [Act,] Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 25.

Rather, we based our decision in Taylor on the carefully delineated subrogation exceptions

contained within the Act. See L&E §§ 9-509(b), 9-901, 9-902. If Taylor “rejected” anything

“categorical[ly,]” Dissenting Op. of Killough, J., at 25, it was the idea that a wrongful death

claim could be maintained by those not considered dependents under the Act and where no

exception to an employer’s liability existed. See Taylor, 233 Md. at 413 (“Thus, if the[] . .

. children [born out of wedlock] . . . had not been entitled to sue as dependents under the .

. . Act, but had proceeded solely under the wrongful death statute, they would have had no

standing to sue . . . .” (emphasis added)).

Thus, as a case that dealt squarely with negligent acts of a third party—wholly

separate from the decedent’s employer—and the issue of subrogation, Taylor is in no way

disturbed by our decision here, nor does it compel a different result.

31
Thus, we hold that the plain language of the Act’s exclusivity provision forecloses

a wrongful death action from a non-dependent child of a deceased covered employee. This

interpretation is in line with previous cases in which we have made clear that the exclusivity

provision protects compliant employers from outside liability for a covered employee’s

injury or death, regardless of the identity of the party bringing suit.

B. The Act’s Exclusivity Provision Does Not Violate Article 19 of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights

Ms. Ledford argues that construing the Act’s exclusivity provision as barring her

wrongful death claim would violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. We

disagree. Article 19 states:

That every [person], for any injury done to [them] in [their] person or
property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and
ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial,
and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.

This Court has interpreted Article 19 as protecting “two interrelated rights: (1) a right to a

remedy for an injury to one’s person or property; [and] (2) a right of access to the courts.”

Piselli v. 75th St. Med., 371 Md. 188, 205 (2002). Accordingly, Article 19 “generally

prohibits unreasonable restrictions upon [1] traditional remedies or [2] access to the

courts[.]” Id. at 206. This is not, however, an unqualified prohibition, and the General

Assembly is permitted, “pursuant to its authority to change the common law or statutory

provisions, to enact reasonable restrictions upon traditional remedies or access to the

courts.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing Johnson v. Md. State Police, 331 Md. 285, 297

(1993)). Thus, whether dealing with a restriction on either a remedy or access to the courts,

this Court assesses the constitutionality of the restriction by balancing how long the

32
affected remedy or limitation on access to the courts has been established (“tradition”) and

the reasonableness of the restriction.

As to restrictions on remedies, such restrictions have most frequently been

considered in the form of caps on damages. This Court has held that such caps are

reasonable, and so permissible, when they further sound legislative purposes and do not

leave the aggrieved with a woefully insufficient remedy. For example, in Murphy v.

Edmonds, an automobile driver and her spouse brought suit against a tractor-trailer driver

and his employer for injuries sustained in a collision. 325 Md. 342, 347 (1992). The

couple’s potential recovery was subject to a statutory cap of $350,000, which this Court

held did not violate Article 19. Id. at 366–67. We said that the provision at issue in Murphy

did not restrict access to the courts, but even if it did, that the restriction would be “entirely

reasonable[,]” id. at 367, as it furthered the General Assembly’s sound goal of ensuring

“the availability of sufficient liability insurance, at a reasonable cost, in order to cover

claims for personal injuries to members of the public[,]” id. at 369.

In Espina v. Jackson, we likewise held as reasonable the Local Government Tort

Claims Act’s (“LGTCA’s”) $400,000 cap on damages, even where an individual was killed

by a police officer and the plaintiffs’ roughly $11.5 million verdict for non-punitive

damages was reduced by 98 percent. 442 Md. 311, 317–19 (2015). In reaching this holding,

we noted that the petitioners were neither without a remedy, nor faced with a “drastically

inadequate” remedy. Id. at 344. The petitioners were able to bring their claim, and receive

damages, albeit subject to a statutory cap. Id. at 343–44. Importantly, we emphasized that

the LGTCA, in fact, “ensures that injured persons will be compensated for their injuries—

33
up to the damages cap—by requiring local governments to pay judgments entered against

their employees and prohibiting local governments from asserting governmental immunity

as a defense to that responsibility.” Id. at 337–38 (citation omitted).

In contrast, in Jackson v. Dackman Co., a case that involved restrictions both on a

remedy and access to the courts, a tenant and her minor daughter sued their landlord for

the daughter’s lead paint poisoning, which resulted in permanent brain damage. 422 Md.

357, 370 (2011). The circuit court found that the landlord was immune from liability in

accordance with the immunity provisions found in the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing

Act (“RLRHA”), but this Court held that the immunity provisions violated Article 19. Id.

at 361, 374, 376. The provisions made it so that individuals covered under the RLRHA had

either no remedy, or a maximum remedy of $17,000, which we described as “totally

inadequate and unreasonable.” Id. at 381. We stated:

For a child who is found to be permanently brain damaged from
ingesting lead paint, proximately caused by the landlord’s negligence, the
maximum amount of compensation . . . is miniscule. It is almost no
compensation. Thus, the remedy which the [RLRHA] substitutes for a
traditional personal injury action results in either no compensation . . . or
drastically inadequate compensation[.]

Id. at 382. This Court noted that the petitioner’s preferred remedy, an action in negligence,

had “long been recognized under ‘well-settled Maryland common law[,]’” id. at 380

(quoting Polakoff v. Turner, 385 Md. 467, 472 (2005)), while the immunity asserted by

respondents was not “in any respect, a traditional or well-established immunity” because

it had existed for only 17 years at the time of our opinion, id. at 380–81. Finally, this Court

found instructive the fact that the immunity provisions contained “no exception” for when

34
an injured child reached the age of majority, and instead provided broad immunity to “all

potential bases of liability for alleged injury or loss [to the injured person].” Id. at 382.

Piselli also involved restrictions to both a remedy and access to the courts. 371 Md.

at 216. When a child’s hip fracture was misdiagnosed, parents brought a medical

malpractice suit on his behalf in federal court. Id. at 196. The district court judge

determined that the action was time-barred as a matter of law, and the parents appealed to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Id. at 193, 197. That court

certified a question of law to this Court:

[W]hether, when a claim is brought by parents on behalf of a child who was
injured before reaching age eleven, the three-year statute of limitations of
section 5-109(a)(2) [of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] begins
to accrue upon the discovery of the injury by the child or upon discovery of
the injury by the parents.

Id. at 193 (alterations in original). We held that the statute of limitations for a medical

malpractice action on behalf of a minor claimant would not start to run until the minor

reaches 18 years, as to conclude otherwise would violate Article 19. Id. at 219. In reaching

that holding, this Court noted that it is a long-held principle in Maryland law that “time

periods for bringing suit are tolled during infancy.” Id. at 214. Indeed, the principle is so

well established that it reached back “more than 500 years[,]” rendering the statute in that

case as “an unreasonable restriction upon a child’s remedy and the child’s access to the

courts.” Id. at 215.

Additionally, this Court also has recognized both notice requirements and

substitution with administrative remedies as valid restrictions on one’s access to the courts.

For instance, in both Johnson v. Maryland State Police, 331 Md. 285, 297–98 (1993), and

35
Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 111–12 (2005), this Court held as valid under

Article 19 notice of claim provisions in the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) and

LGTCA, respectively, which required plaintiffs to file a notice within 180 days of their

injury in order to bring suit. In both cases, this Court noted that such notice requirements

were part of a statutory framework enacted by the General Assembly to permit plaintiffs

to sue the government—an option not otherwise available due to sovereign immunity.

Johnson, 331 Md. at 297–98; Rios, 386 Md. at 139. Thus, this Court held that such

provisions were reasonable restrictions upon an individual’s access to the courts. Johnson,

331 Md. at 298; Rios, 386 Md. at 139. And, in Robinson v. Bunch, we held that

administrative remedies (followed by the availability of judicial review) for State

employees can be a substitute for what would otherwise have been a valid federal cause of

action. 367 Md. 432, 446–47 (2002).

The exclusivity provision contained in L&E § 9-509 provides compliant employers

with immunity from suit for injury or death of their employees, limiting liability to that

provided under the Act. This immunity restricts Ms. Ledford’s access to the courts and

precludes her from pursuing the remedy she seeks, which is a wrongful death action against

her father’s employer for his work-related death. We must, therefore, determine whether

that is a traditional remedy that is protected by Article 19 and, if so, whether that restriction

is a reasonable one.

The Act’s exclusivity provision currently codified in L&E § 9-509 was enacted over

a century ago, at a time when non-dependent children had no rights under the common law,

the WDA, or any other law to sue a parent’s employer for damages arising from a

36
workplace accident resulting in death. In 1997, when the WDA was revised to extend rights

generally to non-dependent children, the exclusivity provision had been firmly established

for more than eight decades, precluding all claims against the employers of the parents of

those non-dependent children outside of the workers’ compensation system. As a result,

non-dependent children in Maryland have never enjoyed the right to sue their parent’s

employer for damages arising from a workplace accident resulting in death. The remedy

Ms. Ledford seeks is, therefore, not a traditional remedy. Indeed, it is a remedy that has

never existed at all in Maryland. Accordingly, it is not protected by Article 19. See Piselli,

371 Md. at 206 (stating that “we have held that Article 19 does not require the recognition

of a new tort cause of action which has never previously been recognized in Maryland”);

see also id. (observing that Article 19 “generally prohibits unreasonable restrictions upon

traditional remedies or access to the courts” (emphasis added)); Dackman Co., 422 Md. at

380 (explaining that a personal injury suit “based upon the defendants’ alleged violation of

a duty under a statute or ordinance designed to protect a specific class of persons which

includes the plaintiff” is one that “has long been recognized under well-settled Maryland

common law” and, therefore, is “the type of remedy protected by Article 19” (emphasis

added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md. 518,

533–34 (2002) (cautioning that interpreting a statute to “create an unreasonable

impediment to the pursuit, or defense, of a recognized common law right of action . . .

37
would raise a serious question of the constitutionality of the provision” (emphasis

added)). 27

Ms. Ledford argues that she is left remediless because there is a distinction between

a “remedy” and the statutory allowance for funeral and medical expenses afforded to non-

dependents in L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689(c). However, the fact remains, as discussed above,

that the General Assembly contemplated non-dependent relatives of covered employees

when it enacted the Act and did not leave such individuals without any means for

recovery. 28 See L&E §§ 9-684 and 9-689(c). If the General Assembly had intended the

27
To date, the only traditional remedies we have recognized as being protected by
Article 19 have been common law remedies. See Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 723
(2015) (concerning the common law remedy for a public official’s gross negligence); Lee
v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 265 (2004) (concerning the common law remedy for tortious
conduct of government official); Piselli, 371 Md. at 214 (concerning common law remedy
for negligence arising from medical malpractice); Johnson, 331 Md. at 297 (concerning
common law remedy for negligence arising out of an automobile accident); Murphy, 325
Md. at 365–66 (same). As the issue has not been raised in this appeal, we express no
opinion concerning whether the protections afforded by Article 19 would apply to
longstanding, traditional statutory remedies as well. In her dissent, Justice Watts believes,
relying on our decision in Espina, that to interpret L&E § 9-509 as we have violates Article
19. Dissenting Op. of Watts, J., at 17. In Espina, we stated the following: “We have
indicated, with regard to causes of action to recover for violations of certain fundamental
rights, that an abrogation of access to the courts which would leave the plaintiff totally
remediless would be unreasonable.” 442 Md. at 338 (first emphasis added) (quoting
Murphy, 325 Md. at 366). In this case, Ms. Ledford is not asserting a claim for a violation
of a fundamental right or a traditional common law remedy. Moreover, as we noted, we
leave open for another day whether Article 19 applies to statutory remedies.
28
Ms. Ledford alternatively argues, that even if funeral and medical expense
repayment qualifies as a “remedy,” it is “as unconstitutional as the damage cap” in
Dackman Co. We find no viability in that comparison. In Dackman Co., the General
Assembly had imposed a statutory cap on damages that could be recovered for a traditional
common law cause of action. 422 Md. at 381. Here, Ms. Ledford would like to pursue a
statutory claim that the General Assembly never extended to her. Thus, Article 19 does not
apply.
38
1997 revision to the WDA to authorize claims by non-dependent children against the

employers of their deceased parents, it could have reciprocally revised the Act’s exclusivity

provision to so provide. It did not.

Moreover, it would be unreasonable to subject compliant employers to suit from

non-dependent relatives of deceased covered employees when the employers have

otherwise been assured that their liability is limited to the confines of the Act. Indeed, it

would render their immunity effectively meaningless when there are non-dependent

children involved, which, in addition to being unreasonable, flies in the face of our basic

statutory interpretation principles and would undermine the fundamental framework of the

Act. Such changes should be made by the General Assembly, not this Court. Thus, we hold

that L&E § 9-509 does not violate Article 19 by precluding a non-dependent child’s ability

to file a wrongful death action against a parent’s employer for damages arising from a

workplace accident resulting in death.

V
CONCLUSION

We hold that the exclusivity provision of L&E § 9-509 bars a non-dependent child

of a deceased covered employee from bringing a wrongful death claim against the

decedent’s employer. The plain language of the Act evinces the General Assembly’s intent

to restrict compliant employers’ liability to the recovery specified in the Act itself. Further,

the General Assembly considered non-dependent relatives and allowed for redress via

payment of funeral and medical expenses. Because employer immunity was established in

Maryland law long before the WDA was extended to non-dependent children, and because

39
a wrongful death action never existed at common law—and not before 1997 for adult, non-

dependent—we also hold that the exclusivity provision does not violate Article 19 of the

Maryland Declaration of Rights. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate

Court of Maryland.

JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE
COURT OF MARYLAND AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.

40
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No. C-03-CV-22-000661

Argued: September 5, 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

No. 3

September Term, 2024
______________________________________

SUMMER LEDFORD

v.

JENWAY CONTRACTING, INC.
______________________________________

Fader, C.J.
Watts
Booth
Biran
Eaves
Killough
Getty, Joseph M. (Senior Justice,
Specially Assigned),

JJ.
______________________________________

Dissenting Opinion by Watts, J., which Biran,
J., joins.
______________________________________

Filed: July 1, 2025
Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that, under the plain language of Md. Code

Ann., Lab. & Empl. (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.) (“LE”) §§ 9-509(a)-(b), workers’

compensation is not the exclusive remedy where a covered employee dies as a result of an

accidental personal injury and has only non-dependent adult children as surviving

relatives. 1 In my view, Jenway Contracting, Inc., Respondent (hereinafter “Jenway”),

requests that this Court rewrite the exclusive remedy provision of LE § 9-509 to advance a

policy perspective not clearly shared by the General Assembly. The exclusive remedy

provision of LE § 9-509 unambiguously provides that the compensation provided under

the Act to covered employees and their dependents is exclusive of all other remedies, and

that suit may only be filed by covered employees or their dependents if an employer fails

to secure compensation under the Act or deliberately intends to cause an employee’s

injuries. The Act does not state, however, that the exclusive remedy provision applies to a

covered employee’s non-dependents.

Ms. Ledford contends that the purpose of the exclusive remedy provision of LE §

9-509 is to prevent the likelihood of “double recovery[.]” Ms. Ledford argues that because

1
LE § 9-101(b) provides that an “accidental personal injury” means:

(1) an accidental injury that arises out of and in the course of employment;

(2) an injury caused by a willful or negligent act of a third person directed
against a covered employee in the course of the employment of the covered
employee; or

(3) a disease or infection that naturally results from an accidental injury that
arises out of and in the course of employment, including:
(i) an occupational disease; and
(ii) frostbite or sunstroke caused by a weather condition.
the Workers’ Compensation Act guarantees only that covered employees and their

dependents receive compensation, the Act does not bar causes of action filed by non-

dependent children of covered employees. 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. Simply put, I agree.

In 1997, the General Assembly amended the Wrongful Death Act for the purpose

of, among others, “establishing that a beneficiary may be entitled to noneconomic damages

in a wrongful death action for the death of . . . certain parents of a child who is not a minor

child[.]” See 1997 Md. Laws 2340 (H.B. 770; Ch. 318) (emphasis added). As a result, in

cases where the deceased is survived by a child who is not a minor, damages “are not

limited or restricted by the ‘pecuniary loss’ or ‘pecuniary benefit’ rule but may include

damages for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship,

comfort, protection, care, attention, advice, counsel, training, education, or guidance where

applicable.” Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“CJ”) § 3-904(e).

CJ § 3-904(e) does not provide that an adult child’s right to file a wrongful death

claim is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act where a parent’s death is the result of

an accidental personal injury. Holding that non-dependent children are not permitted to

recover non-economic damages when a parent’s death arises from an accidental personal

injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act renders CJ § 3-904(e) “nugatory” with

respect to an identifiable group of claimants. Hollingsworth v. Severstal Sparrows Point,

LLC, 448 Md. 648, 659, 141 A.3d 90, 96 (2016) (A “well-established principle of statutory

-2-
construction” is that “a statute should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase

is rendered nugatory.” (Cleaned up)).

In affirming the Circuit Court for Baltimore County’s dismissal of Ms. Ledford’s

complaint, the Appellate Court of Maryland stated that, with the Workers’ Compensation

Act, the General Assembly’s goal was “to effect a compromise between employers and

employees” whereby covered employees and their dependents gave up the right to pursue

tort litigation in favor of guaranteed compensation, and employers agreed to comply with

the Act’s compensation requirements to obtain immunity from suit. Ledford v. Jenway

Contracting, Inc., 259 Md. App. 534, 551, 305 A.3d 498, 508 (2023). Unpersuaded by Ms.

Ledford’s argument that the exclusivity provision of LE § 9-509 limits only the rights of

those eligible for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Appellate

Court concluded that LE § 9-509(b) “eliminates ‘any right of action against any person’

and replaces it with ‘the compensation provided under this title to a covered employee or

the dependents of a covered employee[.]’” Id. at 549-50, 305 A.3d at 507 (brackets in

original). 2 The Appellate Court also rejected Ms. Ledford’s argument that barring non-

The Appellate Court stated that there are only two circumstances in which an
2

employer’s liability is not exclusively governed by the Workers’ Compensation Act: (1)
when “an employer fails to secure compensation in accordance with the Workers’
Compensation Act”; and (2) when an employer “deliberately injures or kills a covered
employee[.]” Jenway, 259 Md. App. at 545, 305 A.3d at 504. The Appellate Court stated
that when an employer “deliberately injures or kills a covered employee[,]” the covered
employee’s surviving spouse, child, or dependent may file suit for damages. Id. at 545,
305 A.3d at 504 (citing LE § 9-509(d)). Because there was no dispute that Jenway’s
conduct did not fall into either of these categories, the Appellate Court held that the
Workers’ Compensation Act remained Ms. Ledford’s exclusive remedy. See id. at 548-
49, 305 A.3d at 506-07.

-3-
dependent children from filing suit violates Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of

Rights. See id. at 552, 305 A.3d at 508-09. 3

In my view, applying the traditional principles of statutory construction leads to a

different conclusion. As with construing any statute, when interpreting the Workers’

Compensation Act, “the goal [] is to effectuate the General Assembly’s intent.” Elec. Gen.

Corp. v. Labonte, 454 Md. 113, 131, 164 A.3d 157, 168 (2017) (citation omitted). “If the

ordinary and natural meaning of a statute’s language makes the General Assembly’s intent

clear, the Court applies the statute’s language” and “may not create an ambiguity to

interpret the Act more favorably to injured employees.” Id. at 131, 164 A.3d at 168

(citations omitted). Conversely, “if its language is ambiguous, the Court construes the Act

‘as liberally in favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate

its benevolent purposes.’” Id. at 131, 164 A.3d at 168 (quoting Hollingsworth, 448 Md. at

655, 141 A.3d at 94).

The Plain Language of the Workers’ Compensation Act

The Workers’ Compensation Act contains a provision that is commonly referred to

as “the exclusive remedy provision” and states in relevant part:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the liability of an employer
under this title is exclusive.

3
Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights states:

Every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to
have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice
and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without
delay, according to the Law of the Land.

-4-
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the compensation provided
under this title to a covered employee or the dependents of a covered
employee is in place of any right of action against any person.

LE § 9-509(a), (b).

By its plain language, the statute states that the compensation provided to a covered

employee or the dependents of a covered employee is in place of any right of action against

any person. Non-dependents of a covered employee are not mentioned in the provision.

The plain language of the statute does not provide that a covered employee’s non-

dependents receive compensation much less that any compensation is in place of any right

of action against any person.

Importantly, the Workers’ Compensation Act contains a provision that pertains to

payment of expenses in the event that a covered employee has no dependents:

If there are no dependents, the liability of an employer or its insurer shall be
limited to:
(1) medical services or treatment under Part IX of this subtitle;
(2) funeral benefits under Part XIII of this subtitle; and
(3) assessments under § 9-1008 of this title.

LE § 9-684 (emphasis added). If there are no dependents, the provision limits an

employer’s liability under the Act to payment of medical services or treatment, funeral

benefits, and assessments under LE § 9-1008. 4 By its plain language, this provision does

4
LE § 9-1008 provides:

(a) This section does not apply to an award against the Subsequent Injury
Fund.

(b) The Commission shall impose an assessment of 10%, not exceeding
$4,500, against compensation awarded or likely to be awarded against an

-5-
not state that it provides compensation to a covered employee’s non-dependent survivors.

Nor does the provision purport to state that it is the sole or exclusive remedy available to

non-dependent survivors or that it precludes a non-dependent survivor from bringing a

cause of action against an employer. In fact, the provision makes no mention of a covered

employee’s non-dependents at all. Put simply, the provision does not state that the payment

of expenses authorized in the event that a covered employee has no dependents replaces a

covered employee’s non-dependents’ right of action against any person.

Based on the plain language of the Act, which is unambiguous, I would hold that

the exclusive remedy provision of LE § 9-509 does not apply to a covered employee’s non-

dependent children. LE § 9-501(a) identifies the individuals who are entitled to

compensation for accidental personal injuries and states that, “[e]xcept as otherwise

provided, each employer of a covered employee shall provide compensation in accordance

with this title to: (1) the covered employee for an accidental personal injury sustained by

the covered employee; or (2) the dependents of the covered employee for death of the

insured or self-insured employer and not paid if the Commission determines
that the compensation is not awarded or is abated because of:
(1) death; or
(2) lack of a covered employee or a dependent of a covered employee
eligible for the compensation.

(c) On expiration of the time period within which a claim may be filed under
this title, the Commission shall assess the insurer or self-insured employer
$4,500 if a covered employee dies:
(1) due to an accidental personal injury or occupational disease; and
(2) without any surviving dependent.

(d) The Commission shall direct payment of an assessment under subsection
(b) or (c) of this section into the Fund.

-6-
covered employee[.]” (Paragraph breaks omitted). LE § 9-509(b) states that this

compensation is in place of “any right of action against any person.” The plain language

of the Workers’ Compensation Act demonstrates that the General Assembly intended that

workers’ compensation would be the exclusive remedy only for covered employees and

their dependents.

Applying the exclusive remedy provision of the Act to non-dependent children

expands the plain meaning of the statute. The Workers’ Compensation Act explicitly states

that “the compensation provided under this title to a covered employee or the dependents

of a covered employee is in place of any right of action against any person.” LE § 9-509(b).

Stated otherwise, the exclusive remedy provision refers to the compensation provided to a

covered employee or the covered employee’s dependents being in place of any right of

action against any person. The unambiguous meaning of this language is that

compensation provided under the Act to a covered employee and a covered employee’s

dependents takes the place of any right of action a covered employee or the covered

employee’s dependents have against any person for accidental personal injury. The

exclusive remedy provision imposes no such limitation on a covered employee’s non-

dependent survivors.

By its plain language, LE § 9-684 does not provide compensation to non-dependent

adult children of covered employees. Where there are no dependents, LE § 9-684 provides

for payment of medical services or treatment, funeral benefits, and assessments under LE

§ 9-1008, not compensation in place of a non-dependent child’s right of action against any

person.

-7-
Legislative History of the Act

Although the plain language of the Act is unambiguous in that non-dependents do

not receive compensation that replaces a right of action against others, the legislative

history of the statute confirms that the General Assembly expressed no intent that a covered

employee’s non-dependents be part of the bargain struck by the Act. In 1914, Maryland

enacted a comprehensive workers’ compensation law, with the exclusive remedy provision

introduced as a compromise between employers and employees. See 1914 Md. Laws 1429,

1451 (Ch. 800, § 35) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 36). The exclusive remedy

provision of 1914 provided as follows:

36. Each employee (or in case of death his family or dependents), entitled to
receive compensation under this Act shall receive the same in accordance
with the following schedule, and except as in this Act otherwise provided,
such payment shall be in lieu of any and all rights of actions whatsoever
against any person whomsoever.

1914 Md. Laws 1451 (Ch. 800, § 35) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 36) (emphasis

added).

The 1914 workers’ compensation law stated that if employers failed to secure

compensation under the statute, they would remain liable in tort to employees. See 1914

Md. Laws 1436 (Ch. 800, § 14) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 14). Additionally,

employers were precluded from asserting the affirmative defenses of assumption of the

risk, the fellow-servant rule, or contributory negligence in all such actions. See id. The

statute stated:

The liability prescribed by the last preceding paragraph shall be exclusive
that if an employer fails to secure the payment of compensation for his
injured employees and their dependents as provided in this Act, an injured

-8-
employee or his legal representative in case death results from the injury,
may, at his option, elect to claim compensation under this Act, or to maintain
an action in the Courts for damages on account of such injury; and in such
an action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused
by the negligence of a fellow servant or that the employee assumed the risk
of his employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence
of the employee.

Id. (emphasis added).

The 1914 workers’ compensation law stated that an employer would lose immunity

from suit if the employer deliberately intended to injure an employee. See 1914 Md. Laws

1457-58 (Ch. 800, § 44) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 45). In such instances, the

employee, the employee’s widow or widower, the employee’s children, or the employee’s

dependents may elect to file suit or to collect compensation under the statute:

If injury or death results to a workman from the deliberate intention of his
employer to produce such injury or death, the employee, the widow,
widower, child, children or dependents of the employee shall have the
privilege either to take under this Act or have cause of action against such
employer, as if this Act had not been passed.

Id.

In the event that a decedent had no dependents, the statute indicated that

disbursements for specific expenditures would be made: “If there be no dependents, the

disbursements shall be limited to the expenses provided for in Section thirty-six hereof.”

1914 Md. Laws 1453 (Ch. 800, § 35) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 36, which referred

to Section thirty-seven). Notably, this provision did not state that non-dependents could

not pursue a cause of action against an employer in exchange for the disbursements and,

unlike the exclusive remedy provision of the Act pertaining to dependents, this provision

-9-
did not state that the disbursements were compensation or a non-dependent person’s sole

or exclusive remedy.

Section 36 of the Act identified the expenditures as a miscellaneous group of

medical expenses not to exceed a certain sum:

In addition to the compensation provided for herein the employer shall
promptly provide for an injured employee, such medical, surgical, or other
attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital services, medicines, crutches,
and apparatus as may be required by the Commission in an amount not to
exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00).

1914 Md. Laws 1454 (Ch. 800, § 36) (codified at Md. Code, Art. 101, § 37) (emphasis

added).

The objective of Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act was to ensure that

workers and their families are compensated for injuries arising out of and in the course of

employment. See, e.g., Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co., 308 Md. 486, 496, 520 A.2d 717, 723

(1987) (“The Maryland Workmen’s Compensation Act was enacted in 1914 to compensate

employees who were injured in the course of their employment.”). Before its enactment,

employers routinely prevailed in tort litigation due to the range of affirmative defenses

available to them, leaving employees and their dependents with little to no redress for

workplace injuries or fatalities. See, e.g., Honacker v. W. C. & A. N. Miller Dev. Co., 285

Md. 216, 222, 401 A.2d 1013, 1016 (1979) (“At common law, a worker injured in the

course of his employment could seek compensation for his injuries and other damages only

through an action in tort.”).

The Workers’ Compensation Act protected employees and their dependents from

financial hardship, informed employers of the costs of doing business, and eased court

- 10 -
dockets by remaining the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. 5 In the early

nineteenth century, with the industrial revolution in full force, employees were increasingly

injured or killed on the job. See John Fabian Witt, The Transformation of Work and the

Law of Workplace Accidents, 1842-1910, 107 Yale L.J. 1467, 1486 (1998). Although

employees possessed the ability to sue their employers in tort, they routinely lost. See Price

V. Fishback, Long-Term Trends Related to the Grand Bargain of Workers’ Compensation,

69 Rutgers Univ. L. Rev. 1185, 1187-88 (2017). With the affirmative defenses of

assumption of the risk, the fellow-servant rule, and contributory negligence available to

employers, a plaintiff’s chance of recovery was slim. See id. at 1188; Fabian Witt, supra,

at 1476. To remedy this power imbalance, states began adopting workers’ compensation

laws. See Fishback, supra, at 1188. The purpose of the laws was to assure that the covered

employee and the covered employee’s dependents were compensated in the event of a

workplace injury. There is simply nothing in the legislative history of the Maryland

5
In Honaker, 285 Md. at 222, 401 A.2d at 1016, this Court noted that, with respect
to a case that arose prior to the enactment of the Workers’ Compensation Act, we had
commented on the problems that existed, stating:

The application of the principles of the common law to suits for personal
injuries sustained in hazardous employments resulted in many cases in
injustice to the parties concerned as well as to the State. It filled the courts
with litigation; it became the fruitful source of perjury; it engendered
bitterness between employer and employee; it resulted in great economic
waste, and it turned out an army of maimed and helpless people as
dependents upon the charity of friends or the public. The operation of these
rules came to be regarded as “foolish, wasteful, inefficient, and barbarous,”
and the national government and a number of the states have now replaced
them by efficient and humane laws.

(Citation omitted).

- 11 -
Workers’ Compensation Act that indicates the General Assembly sought to make the

exclusive remedy provision of the Act applicable to a covered employee’s non-dependents

seeking non-pecuniary damages under the Wrongful Death Act. 6

6
The majority opinion in this case violates basic principles of statutory construction
that this Court is bound to adhere to. Although the Majority states that LE § 9-509 is
unambiguous, in interpreting its plain language, the Majority focuses on words or phrases
in isolation and speculates about the statute’s meaning. After quoting Justice Killough’s
accurate statement that “[n]owhere in L&E § 9-509 has the General Assembly expressly
extended that exclusivity to bar non-dependent children from suing for their parent’s
wrongful death[,]” rather than engage in a plain language analysis, the Majority
“imagine[s]” what the General Assembly must have meant. Maj. Slip Op. at 14
n.15. Focusing largely on the word “exclusive,” without reviewing the full text or the plain
language of LE § 9-509, the Majority declares that the exclusive remedy provision applies
to a covered employee’s non-dependent adult children. The majority opinion fails to even
set forth the complete text of LE § 9-509 and does what all of our principles of statutory
construction dictate that an appellate court not do—read a word or words from a statute in
isolation to reach a forced outcome. See, e.g., Bennett v. Harford Cnty., 485 Md. 461, 485,
301 A.3d 117, 131 (2023) (“We read the plain meaning of the language of the statute as a
whole, so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous,
meaningless or nugatory. Additionally, . . . we do not construe a statute with forced or
subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application.” (Cleaned up)).
The Majority bootstraps what it imagines the General Assembly meant in LE § 9-
509 by purporting to review the plain language of LE § 9-684. See Maj. Slip Op. at 16-
17. The Majority fails to even mention that LE § 9-684, by its plain language, addresses
only what an employer’s liability is “limited to” under the Act in the event that there are
no dependents. LE § 9-684 states only what is available under the Workers’ Compensation
Act if there are no dependents. By its plain language, LE § 9-684 does not state that the
expenses it provides payment for are an exclusive remedy for anyone or that the statute
purports to preclude recovery by non-dependents under any other Act or statute enacted by
the General Assembly.
After an incomplete and speculative plain language analysis, the majority opinion
fails to even meaningfully attempt to review the legislative history of LE § 9-509 and LE
§ 9-684. Hopefully, the majority opinion will come to the attention of the General
Assembly and it will elect to address for itself whether LE § 9-509 was intended to apply
to non-dependent adult children who are not mentioned in the language of the statute.

- 12 -
The Wrongful Death Act

In 1852, sixty-two years before the Workers’ Compensation Act, the General

Assembly enacted Maryland’s first wrongful death statute. See McKeon v. State for Use

of Conrad, 211 Md. 437, 442, 127 A.2d 635, 637 (1956). Maryland’s wrongful death

statute enables a designated group of plaintiffs to sue on behalf of relatives whose death

was caused by a third-party’s negligence. See 1852 Md. Laws 303-04 (Ch. 299, §§ 1-5);

see also McKeon, 211 Md. at 442, 127 A.2d at 637 (This Court noted that before 1852,

Maryland provided no common law remedy for losses suffered by the negligent killing of

a relative and that Chapter 299 of the Acts of 1852 “provided an action at law for the benefit

of a wife, husband, parent and child of a person whose death shall have been caused by the

wrongful act, neglect or default of another, against the person wrongfully causing said

death.”). In Section 2 of the law enacting the wrongful death statute, the General Assembly

stated:

And be it enacted, That every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife,
husband, parent and child of the person whose death shall have been so
caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the State of Maryland, for
the use of the person entitled to damages, and in every action the jury may
give such damages as they may think proportional to the injury resulting from
such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such
action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting the
costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before
mentioned parties, in such shares as the jury by their verdict shall find and
direct[.]

1852 Md. Laws 303 (Ch. 299, § 2).

In 1937, the list of persons entitled to recover under the wrongful death statute was

expanded to permit suit “by the mother of an illegitimate child and by an illegitimate child

- 13 -
when the deceased person was the mother of such child.” McKeon, 211 Md. at 442, 127

A.2d at 637. And in 1952, the General Assembly updated this list to include an alternate

class of “dependent” relatives in the event that a decedent had no surviving spouse, parent,

or child to provide:

Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and
child of the person whose death shall have been so caused or if there be no
such person or persons entitled, then any person related to the deceased by
blood or marriage, who, as a matter of fact, was wholly dependent upon the
person whose death shall have been so caused.

See id. at 442, 127 A.2d at 637 (quoting Md. Code, Art. 67, § 4) (emphasis added).

The Evolution of Damages under the Wrongful Death Act

Historically, parties were limited to recovery of economic (or pecuniary) losses

under the wrongful death statute. See, e.g., Baltimore Transit Co. v. State for Use of

Castranda, 194 Md. 421, 436, 71 A.2d 442, 448 (1950) (“[T]he jury may award damages

for pecuniary losses which have already been sustained by the equitable plaintiffs and for

pecuniary losses which they may probably suffer in the future as the result of the death.

No damages shall be awarded as a solace for the grief or mental suffering of relatives of

the deceased.” (Citations omitted)). However, in 1969, the General Assembly expanded

the category of damages plaintiffs were eligible to receive. See, e.g., Carolina Freight

Carriers Corp. v. Keane, 311 Md. 335, 340, 534 A.2d 1337, 1340 (1988) (“It was not until

1969, however, that the type of damages recoverable was expanded from pecuniary loss

alone, to include also an amount for solatium damages.”). This amendment applied only

to actions involving the death of a spouse or minor child:

- 14 -
In the case of the death of a spouse or a minor child, the damages awarded
by a jury in such cases shall not be limited or restricted to the “pecuniary
loss” or “pecuniary benefit” rule, but may include damages for mental
anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship,
comfort, protection, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice,
counsel, training, guidance, or education where applicable.

Id. at 340-41, 534 A.2d at 1340 (quoting Md. Code, Art. 67, § 4(b)).

In 1997, the General Assembly amended the wrongful death statute to establish “that

a beneficiary may be entitled to noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action for the

death of a child or certain parents of a child who is not a minor child” by amending Md.

Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol., 1996 Supp.) § 3-904(e) to provide:

For the death of a child, who is not described under subsection (d) of this
section, or a parent of a child, who is not a minor child, the damages awarded
under subsection (c) of this section are not limited or restricted by the
“pecuniary loss” or “pecuniary benefit” rule but may include damages for
mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society,
companionship, comfort, protection, care, attention, advice, counsel,
training, education, or guidance where applicable.

1997 Md. Laws 2340-41 (H.B. 770, Ch. 318) (emphasis added).

The 1997 amendment to the wrongful death statute established that children who

are not minor children, e.g., non-dependent children, are entitled to seek noneconomic

damages in a wrongful death action for the death of a parent. As such, CJ § 3-904(e)

provides that “[f]or the death of . . . a parent of a child, who is not a minor child, the

damages awarded under subsection (c) of this section are not limited or restricted by the

‘pecuniary loss’ or ‘pecuniary benefit’ rule[.]” 7 Based on the plain language of both of the

7
Under CJ § 3-904(d), in relevant part, the damages for the death of a parent of a
minor child may include damages for “parental care[,]” in addition to all of the damages
permitted under CJ § 3-904(e).

- 15 -
Acts, I would hold that where an individual’s death arises from an accidental personal

injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the individual’s non-dependent child is not

precluded from filing a wrongful death claim and recovering non-pecuniary damages.

When an individual’s death occurs as a result of an accidental personal injury, LE § 9-

101(b), the protections of the Workers’ Compensation Act are triggered only with respect

to the covered employee and the covered employee’s dependents. Non-dependents who

are not entitled to compensation under the Act, by the plain language of the Act, are not

precluded by the exclusive remedy provision from bringing an action based on a work-

related injury. See LE § 9-509(b).

This interpretation renders no provision of either statute “nugatory” or mere

“surplusage.” See Jung v. Southland Corp., 351 Md. 165, 177, 717 A.2d 387, 393 (1998)

(citations omitted). Instead, it ensures that the wrongful death statute is construed in

harmony with the Workers’ Compensation Act, a core tenet of the in pari materia doctrine.

See, e.g., Powell v. Erb, 349 Md. 791, 801-02, 709 A.2d 1294, 1300 (1998) (“[I]t is well-

settled that there is nothing in conflict between the Workers’ Compensation Act and the

Wrongful Death Act. They both unquestionably deal with recovery for injuries resulting

in death. The two acts are in pari materia and must be construed together.” (Citations

omitted)).

In addition, to conclude that non-dependent survivors of workers who die as a result

of an accidental personal injury are precluded from pursuing an action under the wrongful

death statute would violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The goal of

Article 19, which is derived from Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, is to ensure that

- 16 -
individuals possess both “a right to a remedy for an injury to one’s person or property” and

“a right of access to the courts.” Piselli v. 75th St. Med., 371 Md. 188, 204-05, 808 A.2d

508, 517-18 (2002) (citations omitted). Although the General Assembly is permitted to

statutorily enact reasonable restrictions on remedies or access to the courts, all

unreasonable restrictions are still prohibited by Article 19. See id. at 206, 808 A.2d at 518-

19. That is why we noted in Espina v. Jackson, 442 Md. 311, 338, 112 A.3d 442, 458

(2015), after examining cases concerning the scope of Article 19, that “an abrogation of

access to the courts which would leave [a] plaintiff totally remediless [is] unreasonable.”

(Emphasis in original). 8 Likewise, that principle is what led us to hold in Piselli, 371 Md.

8
After oral argument in the case, this Court requested supplemental briefing from
the parties and the Attorney General to address Article 19. Specifically, this Court
requested supplemental briefs addressing the following issue:

Whether Title 9 of the Labor and Employment Article would violate Article
19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights if it bars a wrongful death claim by
a non-dependent adult child against the employer of the child’s deceased
parent where the death resulted from an accidental personal injury arising out
of and in the course of employment.

In its supplemental brief, although the Attorney General argued that applying LE §
9- 509 to non-dependent children of covered employees would not violate Article 19, the
Attorney General took “no position on the ultimate question before this Court, i.e., whether
the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision bars a wrongful death claim filed
by a non-dependent adult child.” The Attorney General’s position is that “Article 19
prohibits only ‘unreasonable restrictions upon traditional remedies or access to the courts,’
Piselli v. 75th St. Med., 371 Md. 188, 206 (2002), and preclusion of a non-dependent adult
child’s wrongful death claim would not constitute such a restriction.” At first glance, the
Majority appears to adopt the General Assembly’s position, e.g., “Article 19 generally
prohibits unreasonable restrictions upon [1] traditional remedies or [2] access to the
courts[,]” and concludes that Article 19 protects against unreasonable impediments to the
pursuit of a recognized “common law right of action” and unreasonable restrictions on

- 17 -
access to courts where “fundamental rights” are concerned. Maj. Slip Op. at 32, 37-38 &
n.27 (cleaned up) (brackets in original).
The Majority has concluded, however, that LE § 9-509 provides employers with
“broad immunity” and that what it determines is compensation under the Act “stands in
place of any cause of action against any person.” Maj. Slip Op. at 14-15 (emphasis in
original). With this broad holding, the Majority has concluded that non-dependent adult
children and anyone else who may seek to pursue an action based on a covered employee’s
death are precluded not just from bringing wrongful death actions but from bringing any
action at all, including common law actions that the Majority considers traditional remedies
for which it acknowledges restrictions must be reasonable under Article 19.
Next, citing Espina, the Majority concludes that because Ms. Ledford is not
asserting a common law remedy or a violation of a fundamental right, Article 19 does not
apply. See Maj. Slip Op. at 38 n.27. To be sure, in Espina, 442 Md. at 338, 112 A.3d at
458, in addressing whether the Local Government Tort Claims Act’s damages cap may
circumscribe a petitioner’s state constitutional claim, we stated “[w]e have indicated, with
regard to causes of action to recover for violations of certain fundamental rights, that an
abrogation of access to the courts which would leave the plaintiff totally remediless would
be unreasonable.” (Emphasis in original). It is an overreading of this statement, however,
to conclude that this Court has held that a restriction on access to the courts violates Article
19 only where a person alleges the violation of a fundamental right. In setting forth the
standard that the Majority adopts—namely, that Article 19 prohibits only “unreasonable
restrictions upon traditional remedies or access to the courts,” the Attorney General does
not argue that a person must assert a violation of a fundamental right to be assured access
to courts under Article 19. Nor do the cases relied upon by the Attorney General set forth
such a requirement. See, e.g., Piselli, 371 Md. at 206, 808 A.2d at 518-19 (This Court
stated that Article 19 “generally prohibits unreasonable restrictions upon traditional
remedies or access to the courts but allows the Legislature . . . to enact reasonable
restrictions upon traditional remedies or access to the courts. Article 19 does guarantee
access to the courts but a statutory restriction upon access to the courts violates Article 19
only if the restriction is unreasonable[.]” (Cleaned up)); id. at 216, 808 A.2d at 524 (This
Court held that “barring an injured child’s medical malpractice claim before the child is
able to bring an action is an unreasonable restriction upon the child’s right to a remedy and
access to the courts guaranteed by Article 19[.]”). In its brief, the Attorney General
explains that Article 19 protects two interrelated rights: “(1) a right to a remedy for an
injury to one’s person or property; and (2) a right of access to the courts.” (Cleaned up).
In the end, the Majority concludes that “it would be unreasonable to subject
compliant employers to suit from non-dependent relatives of deceased covered employees
when the employers have otherwise been assured that their liability is limited to the
confines of the Act.” Maj. Slip Op. at 39. This reasoning of course depends entirely upon
the assumption that the Majority’s holding that LE § 9-509 applies to non-dependent adult
children is correct in the first place.

- 18 -
at 215, 808 A.2d at 524, that barring an injured child’s medical malpractice claim pursuant

to Maryland’s three-year and five-year statutes of limitations would violate Article 19 by

unreasonably restricting the injured child’s remedy and access to the courts. And even

then, such a restriction would not have wholesale barred the injured child’s ability to file

suit. Thus, I cannot join the Majority in holding that restricting Ms. Ledford’s ability to

recover anything other than payment of funeral expenses is not violative of Article 19 of

the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

In sum, I would hold that compensation under the Act is as the plain language of the

Act states in LE § 9-509—the exclusive remedy for a covered employee and a covered

employee’s dependents for accidental personal injury incurred by a covered employee. It

is not the exclusive remedy for a covered employee’s non-dependent children. The circuit

court, therefore, erred in dismissing Ms. Ledford’s complaint.

For the above reasons, respectfully, I dissent.

Justice Biran has authorized me to state that he joins in this dissent.

- 19 -
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No. C-03-CV-22-000661
Argued: September 5, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

No. 3

September Term, 2024

SUMMER LEDFORD

v.

JENWAY CONTRACTING, INC.

Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Booth,
Biran,
Eaves,
Killough,
Getty, Joseph M., (Senior Justice,
Specially Assigned),

JJ.

Dissenting Opinion by Killough, J., which
Biran, J., joins.

Filed: July 1, 2025
This appeal calls upon us to honor Maryland’s evolving commitment to provide

meaningful remedies for beneficiaries of wrongful death victims – whether dependents

under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “WCA”) or the broader class that the Wrongful

Death Act (the “WDA”) protects. Enacted in 1852, the WDA has been expanded over time

– most notably in 1973 by abolishing the pecuniary loss rule 1 and again in 1997 when the

General Assembly amended Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 3-904(e) to

permit a decedent’s adult, non

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087715. Public record. Not legal advice.