As workplaces navigated the challenges of COVID-19, a critical question emerged: when is a workplace liable for employees contracting the virus? Iowa's workers’ compensation system addressed this question head-on. A recent Iowa Court of Appeals case affirmed the Commissioner’s original decision that proving a workplace connection to COVID-19 exposure requires clear and compelling evidence.
The Case: Claiming COVID-19 as a Workplace Illness
In the case in question, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of workers' compensation benefits to Charles Collins, a former employee of Des Moines Area Regional Transit Company (DART) who claimed to have contracted COVID-19 at work.
Collins tested positive for COVID-19 in November 2020 and alleged he contracted the virus at work due to his interactions with coworkers and the close quarters of his customer service duties. Despite DART’s extensive safety measures—including mandatory masking, sanitization, and contact tracing—Collins argued that imperfect compliance by other employees and a workplace increase in COVID-19 cases supported his claim for benefits.
DART’s defense highlighted critical gaps in Collins’s evidence. No coworkers in his department had tested positive in the months leading up to his diagnosis, and contact tracing revealed no clear exposure. Furthermore, Collins had traveled out of state shortly before testing positive, staying in a hotel and interacting with various individuals outside of work. These factors complicated the argument that his infection was workplace-related.
The Court’s Findings: Substantial Evidence Matters
The workers’ compensation commissioner denied Collins’s claim, citing insufficient evidence that he contracted COVID-19 at work. The commissioner weighed competing expert opinions, noting that Collins’s medical expert provided only general statements about workplace exposure without addressing specific interactions or the timeline of infection. In contrast, DART’s expert emphasized Collins’s non-work-related exposures and the difficulty of pinpointing the source of infection with medical certainty.
The Iowa Court of Appeals found that Collins’s evidence suggested a possible, but not probable, workplace exposure. Key considerations included:
- Non-work-related exposure risks
- Gaps in workplace transmission evidence
- Contradictory testimony
- Expert testimony limitation
Takeaways for Employers
This case offers critical lessons for navigating workers’ compensation claims related to infectious diseases:
- Substantial Evidence is Crucial: General claims or assumptions will not suffice.
- Competing Sources of Exposure Complicate Claims: Employers can bolster their defense by documenting safety measures and investigating potential outside exposure.
- The Role of Workplace Protocols: Employers should maintain and enforce robust safety protocols to mitigate risks and demonstrate compliance.
- Expert Testimony Must Be Comprehensive: Employers should ensure that expert reports address the specific circumstances of exposure and causation.
Conclusion
The Iowa Court of Appeals decision reinforces the challenges of proving workplace causation in workers’ compensation cases involving COVID-19. For employers, it underscores the importance of maintaining thorough safety protocols and documentation. For employees, it highlights the continued need to provide substantial evidence to link their illness to workplace conditions. As the legal landscape surrounding infectious diseases continues to evolve, this case should help parties navigate similar claims in the future.
As an employer if you have questions regarding workers compensation, please contact Ben Merrill, or your BrownWinick attorney.
