Twins’ Doctor Must Face Player Malpractice Claim Due To Florida Workers’ Comp Exception

Ryan Costello was a promising young baseball player. After being drafted in the 31st round of the 2017 Major League Baseball (MLB) Draft by the Seattle Mariners, and later traded to the Minnesota Twins, he worked his way through the clubs’ A and AA affiliates. Sadly, his career was cut short when he was found dead in his hotel room in November 2019 while in New Zealand preparing to participate in the Australian Baseball League. In an ongoing lawsuit in Florida state court, Costello’s family alleges that malpractice by Dr. David Olson, a Twins’ team doctor, led to Costello’s death. The lawsuit has pushed forward on some close legal calls.

A Missed Diagnosis

According to their December 2021 complaint, Costello’s parents allege that as part of a 2019 spring training physical, an electrocardiogram (EKG) revealed that Costello had cardiac abnormalities. Further, Costello’s parents claim that Costello should have undergone more testing before being allowed to participate in any strenuous activities. Nevertheless, Dr. Olson allegedly marked Costello’s health report as “Normal” with “No Further Action Necessary,” clearing Costello to return to spring training.

Costello’s parents claim that the abnormalities were later determined to be Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, “a cardiac condition that is treatable but that can make vigorous physical activity dangerous and potentially fatal.” Indeed, Costello’s death was apparently caused by a cardiac arrythmia, a condition connected with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome.

Evading Arbitration

Dr. Olson first moved to compel the action to arbitration according to the arbitration provision in the Major League Agreement (MLA), also known as the Major League Constitution. The MLA was incorporated by reference into Costello’s minor league player contract.

Before going further, it is important to understand the context of this arbitration provision. MLB players have long been unionized and, as a result, negotiate collective bargaining agreements governing the terms and conditions of their employment, including relevant arbitration clauses. Minor league players did not unionize until 2022 and did not have a collective bargaining agreement until 2023. Consequently, prior to that point, minor league players were subject to the terms unilaterally imposed by MLB, its major league clubs, and their minor league affiliates. Some of those terms, like the arbitration provision, are included in the MLA, which is simply an agreement among the 30 MLB clubs.

The arbitration provision at issue stated as follows:

“All disputes and controversies related in any way to professional baseball between Clubs or between a Club(s) and any Major League Baseball entity(ies) (including in each case, without limitation, their owners, officers, directors, employees and players), other than those whose resolution is expressly provided for by another means in this Constitution, the Major League Rules, the Basic Agreement with the Major League Baseball Players Association, or the collective bargaining agreement with any representative of the Major League umpires, shall be submitted to the Commissioner, as arbitrator, who, after hearing, shall have the sole and exclusive right to decide such disputes and controversies and whose decision shall be final and unappealable.”

Major League Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1.

Consequently, as eventually explained by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, “the arbitration provision applies to disputes that are related in any way to professional baseball and that are between either: (1) two or more Clubs; or (2) one or more Club(s) and one or more Major League Baseball entity(ies).” Importantly, the court reiterated that “[b]

oth ‘Clubs’ and ‘Major League Baseball entity(ies)’ include their respective owners, officers, directors, employees and players.”

The trial court granted Dr. Olson’s motion to compel, relying on Wolf v. Rawlings Sporting Goods, a 2010 case in which the Southern District of New York, applying the same arbitration provision, also granted a motion to compel arbitration. In Wolf, a former minor leaguer sued MLB, Minor League Baseball and a variety of other parties after his skull was fractured by a pitch that he said was the result of a defective helmet.

In a December 8, 2023 decision, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District, disagreed and reversed. In its reading, the present action “is a dispute between a player of a Club and an employee of the same Club.” It is an “intra-Club dispute” and such disputes are not within the scope of the arbitration provision. The court also differentiated Wolf, asserting that the claims there “plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.”

Evading Workers’ Compensation Law

Following the case’s remand back to the trial court, Dr. Olson argued that the Costellos’ claims were barred by workers’ compensation laws, which generally provide the exclusive avenue for resolving disputes over workplace injuries, including deaths. Workers’ compensation laws also generally bar lawsuits against coworkers. Instead, the injured worker is intended to be fully compensated by the workers’ compensation insurance system.

As an initial matter, Dr. Olson’s argument hinged on a surprising fact – that he was a co-employee of Costello. While athletic trainers are typically employees of professional sports clubs, doctors are usually independent contractors. Indeed, in several cases brought by players, athletic trainers have successfully asserted the workers’ compensation defense while doctors have not (see chapters 2 and 3 of this report for discussion of such litigation).

In a March 11, 2025 decision, the court denied Dr. Olson’s motion for summary judgment based on the workers’ compensation defense. The result turned on the application of Florida rather than Minnesota law. The court determined that Florida law – where Dr. Olson examined Costello – should apply. Florida’s workers’ compensation law, however, does not cover professional athletes. In other words, because professional athletes cannot be compensated by the workers’ compensation system, they (or, in this case, their estate representatives) are not barred from bringing claims against their employers or co-employees arising out of workplace injuries.

Dr. Olson has appealed the court’s decision, which has resulted in a stay of the proceedings until an appellate decision is rendered. If the appeal is unsuccessful, expect Dr. Olson and his insurer to seek a settlement rather than face the exorbitant amounts often awarded to professional athletes by juries in medical malpractice cases.