Is COVID-19 a Compensable Workers' Compensation Claim in Alabama?
By: Carson Campbell
The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the workforce and working conditions as we know it. As COVID-19 is easily transmittable and highly contagious, questions arose on how the pandemic could affect workers’ compensation claims nationwide. Consequently, some states implemented statutes regarding the compensability of COVID-19 claims, in most instances for first responders. These statutes often provided a presumption of coverage for certain employees who were impacted by exposure to COVID-19. However, over two years have passed since the beginning of the pandemic and neither the Alabama appellate courts nor the legislature have addressed the issue. The following is a summary of current Alabama compensability law and its applicability to COVID-19 claims.
COVID-19 should be treated as any other workplace injury/illness for the purposes of determining compensability. To fall within the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), COVID-19 would need to be an “injury” or “occupational disease” as defined by law. Under Ala. Code § 25-5-1(9), an “injury” is defined to mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except for an occupational disease. Therefore, COVID-19 would properly be classified as an occupational disease, not an injury.
Ala. Code § 25-5-110 defines “occupational disease” as follows:
(1) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE. A disease arising out of an in the course of employment . . . which is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is engaged but without regard to negligence or fault, if any, of the employer. A disease . . . shall be deemed an occupational disease only if caused by a hazard recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation, or employment as a direct result of exposure, over a period of time, to the normal working conditions of the trade, process, occupation, or employment.
Though “disease” is not specifically defined, Alabama courts have found that any disease can be compensable as an occupational disease if both legal and medical causation can be established. Further, the courts have found that the term “disease” excludes temporary disorders that do not leave chronic effects. A “disease” under the Act “denotes a serious disorder which has impaired the constitution or left in its wake some organic or chronic effect that has undermined the employee’s general health.” Chrysler Corp. v. Henley, 400 So. 2d 412, 414 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). This exclusion removes ordinary colds, sniffles and other routine illness that employees incur from time to time. The Act was not intended to cover temporary and/or ordinary illness. An occupational exposure that only temporarily aggravates an employee’s peculiar allergic condition and does not permanently sensitize the respiratory pathways likewise falls outside the definition of “disease.” The common flu is an example of a temporary condition.
Therefore, for a claimant to prove COVID-19 is a “disease,” they must prove that it was not temporary in nature. In addition, the claimant will also have to prove it was “occupational.” An employee must establish that the normal working conditions over a period of time exposed them to an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. See ArvinMeritor, Inc. v. Handley, 12 So. 3d 669 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Given the pervasive economic, social and employment disruptions that COVID-19 created globally, it is hard to imagine that any employee’s work environment during this time to be anything approximating “normal.” While it is possible the court could deem their environment the “new normal,” so to speak, it remains questionable whether a claimant could meet the normalcy requirement.
Causation would likely be the most difficult part of establishing compensability of a COVID-19 claim. A claimant would have the burden of proving: (1) their disease arose out of and in the course of their employment; and (2) that it resulted from exposure to the conditions of their employment. There is a two-prong legal causation test to establish the disease was caused by hazards at work. The disease will be covered only if caused by hazards: (1) in excess of those ordinarily incident to employment in general (increased risk); and (2) different in character from those found in the general run of occupations (peculiar risk). The peculiar risk test can be established by the employee showing sufficient evidence that they were exposed to a hazard in a “substantially different manner” than are persons in employment generally.
Finally, if able to establish legal causation, a claimant would also need to prove medical causation to ultimately succeed on compensability. The court has held in other occupational disease cases that a mere showing of exposure will not necessarily compel a finding in favor of a claimant on the issue of medical causation. See Ex parte Valdez, 636 So. 2d 401, 405 (Ala. 1994). When the disease is one that may, and often does, arise from nonoccupational factors, a claimant bears a heavier burden with respect to medical causation.
Based on the foregoing, proving compensability for COVID-19 claims would be an uphill battle as Alabama law currently stands. Nevertheless, certain professions, specifically first responders or those in the healthcare field, may have an easier time establishing compensability. Although the analysis for compensability in workers' compensation claims is very fact specific, the relevant facts, coupled with our knowledge of COVID-19 and its transmission make, it a very unique issue in the workers' compensation arena, and to date, there have been no cases at the appellate level that would create law in favor of exposed employees.
Attorney Contact Info
Carson Campbell
carson.campbell@swiftcurrie.com
205.314.2411