- Vaccination (COVID-19)
The sole issue on appeal was whether the worker had entitlement to benefits for an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine she received in January 2021. The 60-year-old worker had been working as a personal care worker in a seniors' residence at the time.
The appeal was allowed.OPM Document No. 15-04-10 provides for entitlement to benefits for a reaction to compulsory immunizations that are for the prevention of work-related disease or infection. The policy states: "Entitlement will be awarded for any adverse reaction arising from compulsory immunization procedures, as a pre-employment requirement or as a compulsory part of the employment, and providing the immunization is for the prevention of work related disease or infection." The Panel interpreted this policy to mean that a worker is entitled to benefits when they experience an adverse reaction to an immunization they receive, that is required by the employer to prevent work-related illness, and when due to the nature of their occupation, they are exposed to infectious disease. Further, Decision No. 1504/21 noted that the policy is written with permissive language, and it is not only in situations where the vaccine is compulsory or mandatory that entitlement can be established. The worker was diagnosed with progressive demyelination resulting from the COVID-19 vaccination. The Panel turned to the question of whether she was required to receive this vaccine as a component of her employment to prevent work-related illness, and whether, due to the nature of her job, she was exposed to infectious disease (COVID-19). The Panel determined that she was. The worker received the COVID-19 vaccine in January 2021, while working as a healthcare worker in a seniors' residence, as it was required to maintain her employment. Although the employer had not yet developed a policy mandating that all employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, the requirement was communicated nonetheless by the seniors' residence in order for the worker and other healthcare workers to enter its premises. Therefore, the worker could not continue in her employment if she did not comply. This aspect of the criteria under OPM Document No. 15-04-10 was met.The Panel accepted that, as a healthcare worker, there was more likelihood of exposure to COVID-19, and the vaccination was required in order to prevent work-related disease or infection. It was known that healthcare workers were at greater risk of contracting the virus, and there was concern about preventing the spread of the illness in long-term care facilities. Therefore, these aspects of the provisions of OPM Document No. 15-04-10 were also met. It was also noted that the worker's employer, in conjunction with the seniors' residence, arranged the appointment (which was only possible at that time as she was a healthcare worker), and with the supply provided by the seniors' residence, which was not available to the general public. The Panel found the worker was more likely to be exposed to COVID-19 due to the nature of her work, and the vaccination was required in order to prevent infection that was work-related, as well as to prevent transmission to the vulnerable population with whom the she worked.