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

Multi-340B Contract Pharmacy Locations on the Brink? The Third Circuit’s Ruling Gives a Hint.

February 17, 2023The 340B drug discount program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer to sell their products at significant discounts to safety net providers called “covered entities.” In 1996, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued guidance authorizing covered entities to enter into a contract pharmacy arrangement with a single third-party contract pharmacy, to which the manufacturer would ship 340B medications but bill the covered entity. In 2010, HRSA issued revised guidance permitting covered entities to enter into an unlimited number of contract pharmacy arrangements.Client Alert

Five Opportunities for Operations and Compliance Excellence in 2023

February 17, 2023With the holidays behind us and the rest of the year ahead, now is the perfect time to get your operational/compliance house in order! Though your list might be a mile (or an inch) long, here are five places to start.Client Alert

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act - What Employers Need to Know

February 17, 2023Effective June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) will require employers with at least 15 employees to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with pregnancy-related restrictions unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.Client Alert

Valley National Bank/Trulieve Loan: A Big Step Out of the Shadows

January 18, 2023In a late December press release, Trulieve announced that it had secured a $71.5 million commercial bank loan. In addition to the amount of the loan, which may be the largest commercial bank loan to date to a cannabis company, the release prominently identified Valley Bank and featured both a quote from Valley’s Senior Vice President, John Myers, and a description of the Bank’s service platform and commitment to the cannabis industry.Client Alert

The End of Non-Competes? The Impact It Will Have on the Healthcare Industry

January 10, 2023On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a proposed rule that, if enacted, will ban employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers (the “Rule”), and the Rule would void existing non-compete agreements. In their Notice, the FTC stated that if the Rule were to go into effect, they estimate the overall earnings of employees in the United States could increase by $250 billion to $296 billion per year. The Rule would also require employers to rescind non-competes that they had already entered into with their workers. For purposes of the Rule, the FTC has defined “worker” to also include any employees, interns, volunteers, and contractors.”
Older posts
Newer posts