Pennsylvania Court Affirms Workers’ Comp Eligibility for Nurse Terminated Over Vaccine Refusal

A Pennsylvania court has ruled that a registered nurse who was terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination can still receive workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related injury, even though her termination occurred while she was on light duty.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Fee vs. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. addresses the complex intersection of workplace vaccination policies and workers’ compensation coverage, providing important guidance for insurers handling similar claims.

Kathleen Fee, a registered nurse employed by Prospect Medical Holdings at Crozer Chester Medical Center since 1990, suffered a neck and left shoulder injury in September 2021 when she slipped on water in a patient’s room. Following her injury, Fee was placed on light-duty work and began training in the hospital’s detox unit. However, her employment was terminated in December 2021 when she failed to comply with the employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, despite her requests for both religious and medical exemptions.

Fee had submitted extensive documentation supporting her exemption requests, including a letter from her physician citing her history of autoimmune diseases and family history of multiple sclerosis, as well as religious documentation from her church minister. When both exemptions were denied, she pursued additional appeals through her union and the employer’s secondary review process, all of which were unsuccessful. Fee then filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking ongoing total disability benefits for her work-related injuries.

The employer argued that Fee’s termination for cause should bar her from receiving workers’ compensation benefits, contending that her refusal to comply with the vaccination policy constituted bad faith conduct. The employer maintained that Fee’s loss of earnings resulted from her voluntary decision not to follow company policy rather than from her work-related injury. The employer also relied on unemployment compensation cases where similar vaccination refusals were deemed misconduct.

Fee countered that her extensive efforts to obtain legitimate exemptions demonstrated good faith, and that her sincere religious beliefs and medical concerns justified her position. She emphasized that she was willing to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing as an alternative accommodation and had never been disciplined during her 30-year employment history.

The court’s analysis centered on the fundamental differences between workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation systems. The court noted that workers’ compensation law aims to make injured employees economically whole after work-related injuries, while unemployment compensation addresses general economic insecurity from job loss.

The court emphasized that “the WCJ has exclusive authority to act as factfinder to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence” and that appellate courts cannot reweigh credibility determinations when substantial evidence supports the factfinder’s conclusions.

Critically, the court found that Fee’s exemption requests were supported by substantial documentation and were pursued through proper channels, distinguishing her case from others involving bare assertions without supporting evidence. The court also noted that unlike other cases where employers offered reasonable accommodations such as weekly testing, this employer provided no alternatives other than the exemption process.

The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s decision and reinstated the original award of ongoing total disability benefits. This ruling clarifies that employees terminated for vaccination policy violations may still be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for legitimate work injuries, provided they can demonstrate good faith efforts to comply with or obtain exemptions from such policies.

Read the full decision here. &