To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com.
On January 5, 2022, the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation issued its first decision regarding a claim for workplace COVID exposure and denied benefits.
The case was brought by the widower of an employee who worked in a prison control room, tested positive for COVID several weeks after an inmate tested positive and eventually died three months later. After hearing evidence, the Administrative Judge came to the following conclusion:
“I find that the staff member’s work as a recording technician in prison without direct contact with inmates or the public (during the period in question) did not put her at risk of exposure to the global pandemic, so her employment is a proximate cause for her was COVID-19 infection … I find that the employees contracting COVID-19 cannot be traced back to their employment.”
Administrative Law Judge
The judge also declined the medical opinion offered by the Claimant from a Maryland physician, who held that the deceased employee most likely contracted COVID from work.
As the committee’s first published opinion on a COVID application, this decision may result in future COVID applications being discouraged, although decisions by administrative judges are not binding on other judges. Additionally, this decision did not include a decision as to whether COVID claims are legally excluded by the Occupational Diseases Act in the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides:
- “Occupational diseases are diseases that arise from and in the course of the respective trade, profession, process or employment relationship in which the worker is exposed to such a disease, provided that the employee or the employee’s dependents first establish, to the satisfaction of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, all of the following:” OCGA 34-9-280.
- In addition, this law specifically requires that the claimant must demonstrate five distinct elements about the disease in such claims, including that it “is not an ordinary disease of life that the general public is exposed to” and is are not “of a nature to which the worker may have been significantly exposed outside of the employment relationship.”
- Of course, a pandemic like COVID cannot meet any of these requirements and cannot be compensated under the law. Indeed, in this case, the administrative judge specifically stated: “I find COVID-19 is a global pandemic and was declared as such when the employee tested positive and died.”
While this case was dismissed on the basis of a finding of fact that the deceased employee did not contract COVID at work and therefore did not suffer a compensable “injury,” the Occupational Diseases Act places a much heavier burden of proof when claiming a disease that supposedly the result of exposure at work. The Occupational Diseases Act must be applied to any such claim, just as the various requirements of the Act for heart disease, stroke, hernia, hearing loss and other conditions are mandatory.
It is anticipated that the board will make a decision on the occupational disease issue if further litigation is pending. Our Workers’ Compensation Team will continue to monitor these cases, provide updates and are on hand to assist you with any questions you may have.
As you will see from the award, plaintiff’s attorney, Susan Sadow, appears to have been able to successfully evade the occupational disease defense by simply stating, “The employee is not claiming compensation as an occupational disease…rather, the employee is claiming that an occupational injury accounts for illnesses arising from and related to employment.” Fortunately, Administrative Judge Reeves concluded: “I find that the work of the staff recorder in prison without direct contact with inmates or the public (during the period in question) did not put her at risk of exposure to the global pandemic, so that her employment was a direct cause of her COVID-19 infection… I feel that contracting COVID-19 among employees is not fair on their employment can be traced back.
Interestingly, Judge Reeves also declined the plaintiff’s offer of a medical opinion from a Maryland doctor, who said the deceased employee most likely contracted COVID from work. Without explanation, Judge Reeves simply remarked, “I attach little weight to Dr. Berg’s opinion.”
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the topic. Professional advice should be sought in relation to your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ABOUT: Employment and HR from the United States
California is on track to bring back sick pay for COVID-19
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Legislative leaders announced they have reached an agreement to restore California’s requirement that companies provide supplemental paid sick leave for employees affected by COVID-19.
Eligibility vs Eligibility
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
A common error in both FMLA policies and communications to employees requesting Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) time off is misuse of the word “eligibility” (or “eligible”)…
