Are injuries caused by fainting while waiting for an employer-required vaccination compensable?

What do you think?

Milwaukie, OR (WorkersCompensation.com) – Workplace injuries due to illness are generally not considered work-related. However, if the cause of the injury is unclear, it can often be compensated. An Oregon case asks whether a man who fainted at work could recover damages for his resulting injuries, even though there were several possible medical reasons for his fainting.

The 80-year-old employee stood in line waiting for the vaccination required by his employer. As any sane person, including me, would do while waiting for a stranger to prick him with a needle, he fainted. He fell and was seriously injured.

A doctor appointed by the employer and the employee’s treating physician identified several possible causes for the employee’s fainting. These causes included age, dehydration, posture, and low blood pressure from blood pressure medications.

But as the employee’s doctor noted, any of these conditions could have caused the man to faint, but it was unclear which, if any, was the trigger. “So there may be speculations about the cause, but no one knows for sure,” he explained.

The workers’ compensation fund upheld the employee’s claim for benefits. The employer appealed.

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury is only compensable if it occurs during and arises from the employment relationship. An injury occurs outside of the employment relationship if it results either from a risk that is clearly related to the employment relationship or from a neutral risk (e.g. an unexplained accident). However, an injury does not arise from employment if it results from a personal risk, such as the claimant’s personal health.

When an injury (or the accident that caused it) appears to be unexplained, the first question that arises is whether the injury could plausibly result from the plaintiff’s personal risk. If there appear to be non-speculative reasons for explaining the infringement, the plaintiff must satisfy the board that the proposed cause is speculative. If the plaintiff prevails, it is assumed that the damage is due to a neutral risk and therefore results from the employment relationship.

Are the employee’s injuries a result of his employment relationship?

A NO. Fainting is always a personal risk.

B. Yes. The doctor’s statements indicated that he could not identify with certainty the cause of his fainting.

If you chose B, you agreed with the court in Kelkay v. SAIF Corp., No. A182264 (Or. Ct. App. 11/27/24), which ruled that the injuries arose from the employee’s employment .

The court noted that the employee’s doctor’s statements showed that any attempt to identify a medical condition that caused the man to faint was merely speculation. Thus, the employee fulfilled his obligation to prove that his injuries were due to a neutral risk.

The court then rejected the employer’s argument that fainting could never be considered a neutral risk, even if the reason for the employee’s fainting was unclear.

“It may be that a fainting is sometimes (or often) due to personal risk, but it does not logically follow that a fainting is always due to a personal risk or that the reason why an employee fainted is never ‘unexplained.’ ‘ can be,” the court wrote.

In fact, the court noted, both doctors concluded that the reasons for the plaintiff’s fainting were either unknown or at best speculative.

The court affirmed the board’s decision that the injuries were compensable.