County of Chester v. L. Zambrana (WCAB)
460 & 497 C.D. 2023
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Lydia Zambrana filed a workers' compensation fatal claim after her husband, Dennis Zambrana, a corrections officer, died from COVID-19 which she alleged was contracted at work.
- The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found Decedent's death compensable as a work-related injury and an occupational disease; the Board affirmed the injury determination but reversed on the occupational disease finding.
- Evidence reflected Decedent’s high risk from preexisting conditions and that his role at a densely populated prison involved potential COVID exposure prior to widespread testing and masking.
- Testimony was heard from both medical and fact witnesses on potential sources of exposure, including workplace and household contacts, with competing expert opinions from both parties.
- The County denied initial causation, leading to litigation over whether Decedent’s COVID-19 was acquired at work and whether it qualified for coverage as an injury or occupational disease under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Zambrana (Plaintiff) Argument | County (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof for Causation | Proper burden applied; COVID contracted at work was proven | WCJ improperly shifted burden; claimant did not prove work causation | County waived this argument on appeal; decision stands for claimant |
| Compensability of COVID-19 as an "Injury" | COVID is compensable as a standard work-related injury | COVID is not compensable—it is a universal risk, not a workplace injury | COVID-19 can be a compensable injury if work causation is proven |
| Medical Expert Competence and Equivocation | Dr. Avetian provided competent and unequivocal evidence of workplace causation | Dr. Avetian’s testimony was not competent or was equivocal; causation not proven | Testimony was competent and sufficiently unequivocal; any deficiencies went to weight, not admissibility |
| Occupational Disease Classification | COVID-19 should also be compensable as an occupational disease in corrections/prison context | Did not meet burden for occupational disease; no data on greater incidence than general population | Evidence did not show substantially greater incidence among prison employees; Board reversed occupational disease classification |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bromley), 161 A.3d 446 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (sets forth burden of proof in fatal claim workers’ compensation proceedings)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Jones), 617 A.2d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (exposure to highly infectious diseases can qualify as injury under Act)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tristate Transp.), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (WCJ must issue a reasoned decision with stated rationale for findings)
- Landis v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hershey Equip. Co.), 526 A.2d 778 (Pa. 1987) (distinguishing risk from incidence in occupational disease claims)
- City of Phila. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kriebel), 29 A.3d 762 (Pa. 2011) (competency of medical testimony reviewed in context of entire testimony)