Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionCOVID-19 Infection Compensable for Essential Utility Worker
A utility lineman who contracted COVID-19 while working as an “essential worker” during the pandemic is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, according to a recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The court’s ruling in Jeff Stacy’s case affirms that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was “inherent” in his employment during the state of emergency, potentially opening the door for similar claims from essential workers.
According to the decision in Stacy vs. Unitil Corp., Stacy worked as a head lineman for Unitil Corporation, maintaining and repairing electrical infrastructure. When the pandemic hit in March 2020, Massachusetts’ governor declared a state of emergency and ordered most businesses to close their physical workplaces. However, as part of the electricity industry, Stacy’s job was classified as an “essential service,” and he was urged to continue working.
Unlike most Massachusetts residents who were able to shelter at home, Stacy’s job required him to work “shoulder to shoulder” with colleagues in stockrooms, travel in truck cabs with coworkers, and gather for shift assignments. In February 2021, after a series of snowstorms necessitated overtime work, COVID-19 spread through Stacy’s team. Eight of 11 linemen tested positive, and although Stacy initially tested negative, he developed symptoms days later and eventually tested positive.
Stacy’s condition deteriorated, requiring hospitalization and ventilator support. He has since suffered from severe shortness of breath and depression, preventing his return to work. When he filed for workers’ compensation, his employer’s workers’ comp insurer Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut denied his claim, arguing that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was not inherent to his employment as a lineman.
At the heart of the dispute was Massachusetts’ workers’ compensation statute, which defines “personal injury” to include “infectious or contagious diseases if the nature of the employment is such that the hazard of contracting such diseases by an employee is inherent in the employment.” The insurer contended that COVID-19 was a universal risk, not specifically inherent to lineman work.
The court disagreed, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the pandemic and the worker’s status as an essential service provider. Justice Wendlandt wrote, “Stacy was one of the few individuals who were urged to continue to work … while most people in the Commonwealth were sheltered in the relative safety of their residences.”
The court distinguished this case from previous decisions denying compensation for workplace-contracted illnesses. Unlike those situations, Stacy’s COVID-19 exposure occurred during extraordinary circumstances with government-imposed restrictions that created heightened risks for essential workers required to maintain close contact with colleagues.
The decision affirms the principle that whether the risk of disease is “inherent” in employment must be evaluated in context. By affirming the award of temporary total incapacity benefits and medical expense coverage for Stacy, the court has established that, at least in some circumstances, COVID-19 can constitute a compensable workplace injury under Massachusetts law.
Read the full ruling here. &
