eNotes: Liability – January 2025 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Gant v. The Lynne Experience Ltd.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 2022-CA-002791-B

Decided: October 31, 2024

Trial Court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s case where Plaintiff did not clearly establish that her negligence claim fell outside the scope of the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Background

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant TLE hired her as a “runner” for an event in the District. She claimed that TLE served as a subcontractor for Defendant Giant at this event. Plaintiff alleged that at the event, a golf cart – driven by another employee of TLE – struck her. She sued both Defendants for negligent hiring, training and supervision, claiming that each breached their duty to ensure that the person driving the golf car operated it reasonably. Relevant here, TLE moved to dismiss the claim with prejudice. It argued that the District of Columbia Worker’s Compensation Act provided Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Plaintiff opposed that Motion. She argued that her claim should proceed because TLE failed to establish that it secured payment of compensation as required by the Act. The Trial Court disagreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against TLE after finding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to prove that TLE’s non-compliance with the statute and, thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Holding

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling. The Court reviewed the Worker’s Compensation Act and found that when there is a “substantial question” as to whether the employee’s injuries are covered by the act, the employee must first proceed under the Act unless the injuries were “clearly not compensable under the statute.” Only then can the court exercise jurisdiction and hear the case. In this case, since Plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries “while performing her duties as an employee,” her allegation implied that her claim is covered by the Worker’s Compensation Act. The Act covers injury to employees that occur in the District of Columbia if the employee performed work for the employer, at the time of the injury. Plaintiff had the burden to show that TLE did not secure payment of the compensation, or that she was an independent contractor. She showed neither. The Court, however, converted the Trial Court’s dismissal into a dismissal without prejudice because it should not have ruled on the merits as the dismissal amounted to one on jurisdictional grounds. The Trial Court incorrectly reached the merits of whether the claim was ultimately time-barred under the Worker’s Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals held that the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services is the proper venue to make that determination, since the Trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to do so.

Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202) 945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.