Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 as Compensable Occupational Disease

Introduction

In the landmark case of Carl Fowler v. Perdue, Inc., the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld a Superior Court decision that denied Carl Fowler's claim for workers' compensation benefits, asserting that his contraction of COVID-19 did not qualify as an occupational disease under Delaware law. This case delves into the intricate boundaries of what constitutes a compensable occupational disease, especially in the unprecedented context of a global pandemic.

Carl Fowler, an employee at Perdue, Inc., contended that he contracted COVID-19 as a direct result of his employment, thereby qualifying for compensation under the State of Delaware's Workers' Compensation Act. The Industrial Accident Board (I.A.B.) initially denied this claim, a decision that was subsequently reversed by the Superior Court and then affirmed upon appeal by the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's decision to uphold the I.A.B.'s denial of Carl Fowler's workers' compensation claim for COVID-19. The core issue revolved around whether COVID-19 could be classified as a compensable occupational disease under Delaware law. The Court concluded that Fowler failed to demonstrate that contracting COVID-19 was a "natural incident" of his employment at Perdue, Inc. Specifically, while Fowler established that the lunchroom environment posed a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to general employment settings, he did not sufficiently prove that this risk was distinct and greater than that encountered in other workplaces or environments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on established precedents that define what constitutes a compensable occupational disease. Two pivotal cases were referenced:

• AIR MOD CORP. v. NEWTON (1965): This case provided a foundational definition of a compensable occupational disease, emphasizing that the disease must result from the peculiar nature of the employment, attaching a hazard distinct from and in excess of general employment hazards.
• Anderson v. General Motors (1982): Building upon Air Mod, Anderson further clarified that an ailment does not become an occupational disease merely because it is contracted on employer's premises. It must be naturally incident to the work, meaning it arises from the specific conditions and hazards inherent to the occupation.

Additionally, the Court referenced Yeager v. Arconic Inc. from Ohio, which held that common illnesses to which the general public is exposed do not qualify as compensable occupational diseases unless a clear causal link to the employment is established.

Legal Reasoning

Applying the standards from Air Mod and Anderson, the Court scrutinized whether COVID-19 met the criteria of being a natural incident of Fowler's employment at Perdue. The key considerations were:

• Hazard Greater Than General Employment: Fowler successfully demonstrated that the cafeteria environment at Perdue presented a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to typical work settings.
• Hazard Distinct From General Employment: However, Fowler fell short in proving that this increased risk was distinct and beyond what is encountered in other essential work environments during the pandemic. Dr. Bacon, Perdue's expert, testified that the risk in the cafeteria was comparable to that in other places where people gather to eat and drink, such as restaurants or retail stores.

The Court concluded that while there was an elevated risk, it was not unique or distinct enough to class COVID-19 as an occupational disease under the prevailing legal standards. The mere fact that COVID-19 was present in the workplace, without a unique contributing factor from the employment itself, was insufficient for compensation.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for future workers' compensation claims related to COVID-19 and similar infectious diseases. It clarifies that for a disease to be considered compensable, the claimant must establish not just a higher probability of contracting the disease due to employment, but a distinct and unique risk directly attributable to the nature of the job.

Employers across various industries might reference this case to assess their liability concerning workplace-acquired infectious diseases. Additionally, employees seeking compensation will need to provide compelling evidence that their disease was a direct result of specific job-related hazards, rather than general exposure risks present in the broader environment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the legal terminologies used in this judgment is crucial for grasping its implications:

• Compensable Occupational Disease: A disease that arises out of and in the course of employment, caused by the specific conditions and hazards inherent to the job.
• Natural Incident: For a disease to be a natural incident of employment, it must be directly linked to the unique and peculiar nature of the job, beyond the general risks associated with employment.
• Burden of Proof: The responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, Fowler needed to prove that it was more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) that he contracted COVID-19 due to his employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Delaware's affirmation in Carl Fowler v. Perdue, Inc. underscores the stringent criteria that must be met for a disease to be deemed an occupational hazard warranting compensation. While the pandemic has undeniably elevated health risks across numerous industries, this judgment delineates the boundaries within which these risks must be linked distinctly to employment conditions to qualify for workers' compensation. Moving forward, both employers and employees must approach such claims with a clear understanding of these legal standards to navigate the complexities of occupational disease classifications.