The Idaho Supreme Court has upheld the Idaho Industrial Commission’s decision to deny worker’s compensation benefits to JaLyn Weeks, the widow of William Weeks. Mr. Weeks, an employee of Oneida County’s Road and Bridge Department, died from complications of COVID-19 in 2021. Mrs. Weeks argued that her husband contracted the virus at work and therefore was entitled to benefits.
The central issue in the case was whether Mrs. Weeks could prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Weeks contracted COVID-19 *at* work. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commission, finding that she had not met this burden.
Background of the Case
William Weeks worked for Oneida County as an equipment operator. His work involved close contact with several coworkers in a break room, where morning meetings were held. In September 2021, the county was experiencing high transmission levels of COVID-19. While the county recommended precautions like social distancing, the Road and Bridge Department was required to maintain its “normal work schedule.” Masks and hand sanitizer were available, but employees generally chose not to wear masks.
On September 17, 2021, one of Mr. Weeks’ coworkers began to feel ill. Although the coworker did not get tested for COVID-19 due to a lack of testing availability at the time, he assumed he had the virus and stayed home until his symptoms were gone. Mr. Weeks began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms on September 29, 2021, after traveling to a neighboring town with two coworkers in a single vehicle. He tested positive for COVID-19 on October 1, 2021, and sadly passed away from complications of the illness at the age of 48.
Following her husband’s death, Mrs. Weeks filed a worker’s compensation claim seeking medical and death benefits. The claim was initially denied by the employer, leading Mrs. Weeks to file a complaint with the Industrial Commission. The Commission ultimately denied the claim, concluding that she had not proven that her husband contracted COVID-19 at work.
The Commission’s Reasoning
The Industrial Commission’s decision hinged on the difficulty of pinpointing the source of Mr. Weeks’ infection. The Commission found that there were too many unknowns about his activities during the relevant time period to conclude that it was more likely than not that he contracted COVID-19 at work. The Commission noted that Mr. Weeks had other potential exposures, including visits to a lumber store and a convenience store, and contact with family members on his ranch.
The Commission relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Coffman, the employer’s expert, who testified about the virus’s incubation period and how long it takes for symptoms to develop after exposure. Dr. Coffman testified that based on when Mr. Weeks began experiencing symptoms, he was most likely exposed to the virus between September 23 and 26.
The Commission rejected the testimony of Mrs. Weeks’ expert, Dr. Nathan, who argued that Mr. Weeks likely contracted the virus from a coworker during morning meetings. The Commission found Dr. Nathan’s opinion unpersuasive because it didn’t account for the science of how the virus replicates. The Commission also noted that Dr. Nathan’s conclusion was based on the assumption that Mr. Weeks had no contact with anyone outside of work, which was contradicted by evidence of his other activities.
Mrs. Weeks’ Arguments on Appeal
Mrs. Weeks appealed the Commission’s decision to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission made several errors.
First, she argued that the Commission applied the wrong legal standard, requiring proof “beyond every possible doubt” that Mr. Weeks contracted COVID-19 at work. She contended that the correct standard is a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
Second, she argued that the Commission should have resolved any doubts in favor of compensability.
Third, she argued that the Commission ignored that Mr. Weeks’ visits to a gas station and other places were part of his work.
Finally, she argued that the Commission’s conclusion that she had failed to prove her husband “actually incurred” COVID-19 from his employment was not supported by substantial and competent evidence.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Idaho Supreme Court rejected all of Mrs. Weeks’ arguments and affirmed the Commission’s decision.
The Court found that the Commission *did* apply the correct legal standard, noting the Commission’s analysis as a whole demonstrated that it identified other, non-employment-based possible exposures to COVID-19, and found these other possible exposures to be at least as likely as employment-based exposure.
The Court also rejected Mrs. Weeks’ argument that the Commission should have resolved doubts in favor of compensability. The Court clarified that this principle applies primarily to cases involving workplace accidents, not occupational diseases like COVID-19.
The Court also rejected the argument regarding the gas station visits. The Court noted that the Commission’s decision was broad enough to include these non-employment-related visits as a possible source of COVID-19 transmission.
Finally, the Court found that the Commission’s conclusion was supported by the evidence. The Court deferred to the Commission’s role as the fact-finder, stating that the Commission was free to determine the weight given to the testimony of medical experts.
Because the Court agreed with the Commission’s ruling, it did not address the question of whether COVID-19 is a compensable occupational disease under Idaho law.