TKCK is pleased to announce that Attorney Robert Martin recently won a hard-fought, complex claim in Massachusetts, involving an employee with a debilitating case of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) which he alleged was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine received for work.
The employee, a crane mechanic, alleged that his employer mandated or strongly urged him to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and that his resulting GBS was therefore a compensable work injury.
Compensability of vaccine side-effects are governed by Hick’s Case, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 755 (2005), where the Appeals Court found that a flu vaccine side-effect was compensable because the employer strongly urged its employees to receive the flu shot. There were also other factors unique to that case which made the receipt of the flu shot more work-related (i.e., the employer was a hospital, the employee worked in direct patient care, the employer offered and administered the shots on its premises, etc.).
In the present matter, the employee’s health deteriorated two weeks after he received the vaccine. He was ultimately diagnosed with GBS, an autoimmune disorder which causes the patient to lose function of their limbs. Upon workup at the emergency room, the employee also tested positive for Lyme disease, further complicating the question of medical causation.
The employee’s condition required seven months of inpatient hospital and rehabilitation stays. The resulting medical exposure was enormous. The employee filed a claim for permanent and total incapacity, with a lifetime § 34A exposure approaching $1,000,000.00.
We denied the claim, asserting that the vaccination was entirely voluntary and that the employer had not compelled or encouraged any of its employees to receive it. We further argued that the employee could not prove, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the vaccine actually caused the GBS.
After a full evidentiary hearing, the administrative judge credited the employer’s testimony and determined that the employee failed to establish that vaccination was a condition of employment. Because the vaccination was voluntary, the judge concluded that the illness did not “arise out of and in the course of employment.” Due to the judge’s denial on this threshold compensability question, he did not rule on the question of medical causation. However, he noted in his findings of fact that he adopted the insurer’s medical expert who opined that the GBS was not caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Accordingly, the judge denied the employee’s claim in its entirety.
The decision reaffirmed the fundamental rule that to recover under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, the injury must arise out of and in the course of the employment. Where an action, such as vaccination, is undertaken voluntarily and mandated or required by the employer, any resulting illness generally falls outside the scope of compensable injuries. The case is also illustrative of the importance of thoroughly reviewing the complete medical records (over 5,000 pages) and obtaining a convincing expert medical report to persuade the judge on such a complex causal relationship question. As post-pandemic employment disputes continue to arise, this case helps clarify the limits of employer responsibility and the evidentiary burden employees must meet to establish that a medical condition is truly work-related.
We congratulate Attorney Robert Martin for his extensive and exhaustive efforts.