K.A. Fee v. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (WCAB)
554 C.D. 2024
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Kathleen A. Fee, a registered nurse and ordained minister, was injured at work in September 2021 and placed on light-duty due to her injuries.
- Fee requested medical and religious exemptions from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, supporting her requests with documentation; both requests were denied after internal review and grievance procedures.
- Employer terminated Fee in December 2021 for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate, despite the lack of accommodation (other than the denied exemption process).
- Fee filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation (WC) benefits for ongoing disability related to her work injury.
- The WC Judge (WCJ) granted Fee’s claim, finding her actions in seeking exemptions were in good faith, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed, finding she acted in bad faith in refusing the vaccine.
- Fee appealed, arguing that the Board improperly reweighed evidence and disregarded the WCJ’s credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Fee’s Argument | Employer’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine after denied exemptions constitutes bad faith | Fee acted in good faith, supported her exemption requests with documentation, and was willing to undergo alternative accommodation (testing) | Fee’s refusal constituted lack of good faith; policy was clear and exemptions were insufficiently justified | Refusal did NOT constitute bad faith; WCJ's credibility findings reinstated |
| Whether the WCJ’s findings on credibility and good faith are binding | WCJ’s credibility determinations are exclusive; Board cannot reweigh evidence | Board can overturn if findings not supported by substantial evidence | Board improperly reweighed evidence and usurped WCJ’s factfinding role |
| Applicability of unemployment compensation (UC) willful misconduct standard to WC benefits | Rivera case is inapplicable; different statutory purpose and factual basis | Rivera shows similar vaccine refusal was willful misconduct | Rivera distinguished; WC law’s standard is different than UC law |
| Entitlement to ongoing WC benefits post-termination | Entitled to benefits, as termination was not for bad faith misconduct | Not entitled due to voluntary breach of policy, not injury | Entitled to benefits; WCJ's award reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- BJ’s Wholesale Club v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pearson), 43 A.3d 559 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (addresses employee discharge and WC benefit entitlement based on good or bad faith)
- Vista International Hotel v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Daniels), 742 A.2d 649 (Pa. 1999) (standards for post-injury discharges and WC eligibility)
- Montano v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), 278 A.3d 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (bad faith in context of post-injury termination is a factual determination for the WCJ)
- DiLaqua v. City of Philadelphia Fire Department (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), 268 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (Board cannot reweigh evidence or credibility determinations made by the WCJ)