917 A.2d 1110, 1117 (D.C.2007); see also Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 41 n. 18 (D.C.1989). 7 . Among other things, Love argues that the District of Columbia is where he resides and where, through Ready Staffing, his relationship with USA Waste was centered. 8 . USA Waste argues that Maryland is where Love was injured; where the conduct causing his injury occurred; where USA Waste is incorporated and does business; and where it exclusively utilized Love's services. 9 . See Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Mather, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 239-40, 210 F.2d 868, 873-74 (1954) (“[I]n an employee-employer suit, if some workmen’s compensation act purports to bar the action, that bar will be applied in the forum.”); see also Dominion Caisson Corp. v. Clark, 614 A.2d 529, 532 (D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws
holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme recognizing statutory abrogation of rule of liberality in workers compensation claims recognizing continuing applicability of jonathan woodner where defendant is plaintiffs statutory employer obligated to provide workers compensation coverage under another jurisdictions law holding that the statutory restrictions relative to an employers affirmative defenses where the employer elects not to operate under the respective workers compensation law cannot extend so as to deprive the employer of being able to require the plaintiffemployee to establish a case of negligence against the employer recognizing applicability of discovery rule