Commonwealth Court Holds Termination for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine Doesn’t Bar Workers’ Comp Benefits

A nurse’s injury and a battle over a COVID-19 vaccination mandate

Ms. Fee is a registered nurse with over 30 years of service at Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., (PMHI) at Crozer Chester Medical Center. She is also an ordained minister who practices her Christian faith at Universal Life Church Ministries. In September 2021, while working as an intensive care unit staff nurse, Ms. Fee slipped across spilled water on the floor of a patient’s room. She skidded into a cabinet, injuring her neck and left shoulder. She completed her shift but was unable to raise her left arm the next morning.

One week later, PMHI placed Ms. Fee on light-duty work and transferred her to a different unit. In early December, PMHI terminated her for failing to get a COVID-19 vaccination in violation of its vaccination policy. The policy required employees to provide proof of vaccination as a condition of employment, but allowed exemptions for medical and religious reasons. If an employee were exempted, PMHI would require them to wear a face mask and comply with COVID-19 testing guidelines. Ms. Fee had twice requested religious and medical exceptions from the vaccination requirement and submitted supporting documentation for both, but PMHI denied her requests.

In February 2022, Ms. Fee filed a claim petition alleging she suffered a neck and shoulder injury from the September 2021 incident and sought total disability benefits from October 10, 2021, onward. In June 2022, PMHI filed a termination petition claiming Ms. Fee had recovered from her injury as of April 22, 2022. On August 29, 2022, Ms. Fee filed a Utilization Review (UR) Petition seeking a review of all medical treatment provided by a physical therapist from June 2022 to the present.

Ms. Fee testified at her deposition that she was aware of PMHI’s vaccination policy before she was injured, and that she supported her requests for a medical exemption with a letter from her primary care physician and “a sincere and heartfelt religious exception.” Ms. Fee noted that after her first exemption application was denied, she asked her union, the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP), to file a grievance on her behalf. The union pursued both a grievance and arbitration on her behalf, but ultimately was denied at each level. Ms. Fee testified that she decided against getting the COVID-19 vaccine due to the limited information available about the vaccine at the time.

She added that she placed “a heartfelt religious and sincere request,” that she “put [her] whole future in God,” she reads the bible daily, and that she “prayed on this. [She] researched this. . . . the Holy Spirit told [her] not to get that vaccine . . . [She] did what God told [her] to do.” She also submitted a letter from her physician explaining her history of autoimmune diseases, her family history of multiple sclerosis, her fear of taking the vaccine without knowing its impact on her health issues, and recommending that she participate in weekly COVID-19 testing instead of getting vaccinated. In addition, she forwarded PMHI a letter from a fellow minister at her church attesting to her faith in God as driving her decision to refuse the vaccine.

After a November 2022 hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) sided with Ms. Fee, granting her ongoing benefits. The WCJ found her testimony credible and determined that her documented attempts to secure medical and religious exemptions were sincere. After finding PMHI terminated Ms. Fee while under work restrictions, the WCJ noted PMHI had the burden to demonstrate that Ms. Fee’s failure to get vaccinated amounted to a “lack of good faith,” negating her entitlement to benefits. Citing her awareness of PMHI’s vaccination policy and its exceptions, her medical exemption request, and her religious exemption request, the WCJ held that neither Ms. Fee’s actions to seek an exemption from PMHI’s vaccine requirement, nor her failure to get a COVID-19 vaccination, amounted to a lack of good faith.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) reversed and suspended Ms. Fee’s benefits as of October 10, 2021, concluding that Ms. Fee’s actions amounted to a lack of good faith. The WCAB reasoned that because PMHI denied her exemption requests after multiple reviews, she had received sufficient due process and had no valid reason to refuse the vaccine. The WCAB further held that Ms. Fee’s “violation of PMHI’s policy had no relation to her work injury and was based solely on [her] own actions, not things beyond her control.” In addition, the WCAB stated Ms. Fee “violated [PMHI’s] policy by failing to obtain a vaccination after her exemptions were denied multiple times[, and] failed to establish any of her alleged exemptions were justified and simply gave a vague argument there was not enough information at the time for her to obtain the vaccine.” The WCAB determined Ms. Fee’s loss of earnings was not caused by her injuries but by her bad-faith refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Commonwealth Court reinstates Ms. Fee’s benefits

In a unanimous opinion by Judge Patricia A. McCullough, the Commonwealth Court reversed the WCAB and reinstated the WCJ’s original decision and Ms. Fee’s benefits, holding the WCAB “wholly ignored the strong evidence of record showing that [she] acted in good faith in pursuing religious and medical exemptions to [PMHI’s] vaccination policy.”

The court explained that whether a claimant acted in bad faith is a finding of fact exclusively reserved for the WCJ, who is responsible for judging witness credibility and weighing evidence. The WCAB’s role is not to reweigh the evidence but to determine if the WCJ’s findings are supported by “substantial, competent evidence.” Here, the court found that the WCAB had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the WCJ.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Fee (as the prevailing party before the factfinder), the court found ample support for the WCJ’s conclusion that she acted in good faith. Her reasons were not “vague;” they were detailed and supported by letters from her doctor and a fellow minister.

In so ruling, the court distinguished its ruling in Rivera v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 310 A.3d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024), which the WCAB relied on. Rivera involved a worker receiving unemployment compensation whose employer fired him for willful misconduct after he refused to comply with its COVID-19 policy. The policy required individuals to get vaccinated or undergo weekly self-testing for the virus and submit the results before reporting for work each Monday. The employer provided the test kits or reimbursed employees for the cost of the kits. The Rivera court affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s decision that the claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits, concluding that the employer’s policy was reasonable and the claimant failed to establish good cause for his noncompliance because he offered “bald assertions without any supporting evidence with respect to his request for religious and constitutional exemptions.”

In Fee, the court distinguished Rivera on two grounds. First, that case concerned unemployment compensation, rather than workers’ compensation. The court noted that Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Compensation Law addresses the “economic insecurity resulting from unemployment,” whereas Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act was created to provide compensation to injured workers to make them economically whole. Because the statutes’ underlying policies, purposes, and objectives are vastly different, the Rivera decision was inapposite. Second, the cases are factually indistinguishable. The employer in Rivera offered workers the reasonable alternative of weekly COVID-19 testing in lieu of getting vaccinated. But PMHI did not provide such reasonable accommodations. Also, the claimant in Rivera made bare allegations to support his exemption requests. Ms. Fee, on the other hand, “supported her exemption requests with ample supporting documentation,” according to the court.

Good faith efforts to seek an exemption from an employer’s vaccine policy will not end workers’ compensation benefits

Fear and ignorance are tough opponents. Should another pandemic emerge like the COVID-19 pandemic, we should hope governments and private institutions will learn the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and not subject their citizens and employees to an Orwellian level of mandatory surveillance, testing, and vaccinations if less restrictive precautions would suffice.

As for Pennsylvania workers who refuse to comply with their employer’s vaccination policy, the Commonwealth Court’s decision here in Fee is noteworthy. First, it affirms WCJs as the exclusive fact finders on witnesses’ credibility and intent in such cases, keeping the WCAB from second-guessing their determinations. In addition, the decision heightens the “bad faith” standard employers must meet to cut off workers’ compensation benefits. Even if a worker is unsuccessful in their efforts to secure an exemption from an employer’s policy, their sincere, documented efforts to seek that exemption are likely to indicate a showing of good faith, which will help them preserve their entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.

Jerry M. Lehocky is a founding partner of Pond Lehocky Giordano Inc., the largest workers’ compensation and Social Security disability law firm in Pennsylvania, and one of the largest in the United States. He can be contacted at jlehocky@pondlehocky.com.

Reprinted with permission from the August 7, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.