Redefining Workplace Risk: Alabama Opens the Door to COVID-19 Compensability
By: Carson Campbell
In 2024, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed a novel issue in Meeks v. Opp Health and Rehabilitation, ruling an employee’s contraction of COVID-19 could be compensable under the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) if it arose out of and in the course of her employment. This decision establishes precedent for evaluating similar claims under highly specific circumstances.
The employee alleged she contracted COVID-19 in June 2020 while working in the line and scope of her duties as a certified nurse assistant for Opp Health and Rehabilitation. In May 2021, she filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Covington County, asserting her exposure to COVID-19 caused permanent injuries to her lungs and airway, rendering her permanently disabled.
The employer denied the claim, asserting her injuries neither arose out of her employment nor qualified for coverage under the Act as an accidental injury, occupational disease or nonaccidental injury. The employer then sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing no set of facts could establish that a “highly contagious communicable disease” like COVID-19 met the compensability requirements under the Act. The employee countered, arguing her employment exposed her to a heightened risk of COVID-19 compared to the general public, making it an occupational disease under the Act.
During oral arguments, the employer argued the employee failed to plead her illness as an occupational disease as defined by the Act. Further, the employer argued COVID-19 impacted everyone, therefore it could not qualify as an occupational disease and was not compensable. In response, the employee argued she did not have an occupational disease as narrowly defined under the Act, but rather a “condition” that arose from her specific work environment. She emphasized that her job required her to be in a closed environment with COVID-positive individuals and come into direct contact with them. Therefore, she argued, there was “room” within the Act for her condition to be found compensable.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the employer, reasoning COVID-19 did not meet the statutory definition of an occupational disease and leaving unaddressed whether her condition could qualify as a nonaccidental injury.
On appeal, the employee shifted her argument again, claiming her condition should be considered a nonaccidental injury. The employer contended this argument was impermissible because it had not been raised at trial. However, the appellate court rejected this procedural argument and considered the employee’s claim on its merits.
Citing the 1938 Alabama Supreme Court case Pow v. Southern Construction Company, 180 So. 288 (Ala. 1938) the appellate court drew parallels between COVID-19 and pneumonia, which had been deemed compensable when it resulted from employment-specific exposure. The Pow decision established that employment-related risks materially exceeding general exposure levels could qualify as compensable under the Act.
Applying this principle, the appellate court noted the unique context of June 2020, when COVID-19 posed heightened risks due to the absence of vaccines, limited public activity and the employee’s direct interaction with infected patients. These factors, the court reasoned, subjected the employee to a risk materially exceeding that faced by the general population.
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment stating, “we are not prepared to hold that COVID-19 is not compensable under the Act as a matter of law.” The case was remanded as the court opined the employee was entitled to pursue her claim and should have the opportunity to present evidence in support of her claim. However, the court emphasized the fact-specific nature of its decision, suggesting compensability would depend heavily on the employee’s job duties and working conditions.
This decision does not automatically render all COVID-19 claims compensable under the Act. Instead, it underscores that compensability depends on the unique factual circumstances of each case, particularly where an employee’s work environment exposes them to risks exceeding those faced by the general public. While COVID-19 is no longer as prevalent as it once was, employers, insurers and legal practitioners alike should remain vigilant, as this decision may shape how workers' compensation laws are applied to modern health risks in an increasingly complex and evolving work environment. This decision is a reminder that the law must adapt to the realities of a post-pandemic world where new challenges may emerge, requiring careful analysis and application of existing legal frameworks.
Attorney Contact Info
Carson Campbell
carson.campbell@swiftcurrie.com
205.314.2411