Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Client Alert
June 9, 2021

As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability.

Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

This is welcome news and will help facilitate employers’ proactive efforts to protect employees and maintain a safe workplace.

Ohio workers’ compensation law, however, is not so clear. In 1934, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Spicer Mfg. Co. v. Tucker that an employee’s death resulting from a smallpox vaccination was covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The decision was based primarily upon the fact that the employer required the employee to obtain the vaccine as a condition of continued employment.

Scant precedent since the Spicer decision includes the 2016 Eighth District Court of Appeals decision in Rolsen v. Walgreen Co. In Rolsen, an employee filed a workers’ compensation claim after experiencing adverse symptoms from a pneumonia vaccine. The court of appeals held that the illness was not sustained in the course of employment since the vaccine was encouraged but not required by the employer. The court of appeals arrived at this conclusion despite the fact that the employee received the vaccine on the employer’s premises during the employee’s working hours.

Ohio Industrial Commission decisions vary and do not provide a great deal of guidance to employers. However, careful implementation of a vaccine policy can substantially mitigate an employer’s workers’ compensation liability for adverse reactions. For assistance in developing such a policy and for the latest OSHA updates, please contact BMD Labor + Employment Member Stephen Matasich at sematasich@bmdllc.com.

Labor LawEmployement LawStephen E. Matasich
Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Overhauled: U.S. Entities No Longer Required to Report

March 24, 2025The Department of Treasury has issued an interim final rule significantly altering the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As of March 21, 2025, all U.S.-created entities and their beneficial owners are exempt from reporting requirements. Only non-U.S. entities registered to do business in the U.S. must still report, but they are not required to disclose U.S. citizen owners. Business owners should stay informed on these changes and consult legal counsel for compliance guidance.Client Alert

ODM to Implement Medicaid Work Requirements: What Providers and Medicaid Expansion Recipients Need to Know

March 21, 2025The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has submitted a waiver to impose work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients. If approved, the new eligibility criteria will take effect on January 1, 2026. A federal public comment period is open until April 7, 2025.Client Alert

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

March 19, 2025On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.Client Alert

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

March 5, 2025The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.Client Alert

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

March 3, 2025A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.
Older posts