4 N.W.3d 858
Neb.2024Background
- Christine Thiele, a nurse liaison at Select Specialty Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, contracted COVID-19 in April 2020, at the start of the pandemic, after being required to work onsite without access to a face mask.
- Thiele alleged that her COVID-19 infection, acquired while working in close quarters with healthcare staff and without sufficient PPE, caused severe long-term medical issues and rendered her disabled.
- She sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming her infection was a compensable "occupational disease" under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Select Medical Corporation and its insurer (Liberty Insurance) moved for summary judgment, arguing COVID-19 is not a compensable occupational disease but an ordinary disease of life.
- The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding COVID-19 is an ordinary disease of life given its later widespread incidence.
- Thiele appealed, contesting the view that the compensability should be judged by circumstances at the time of her exposure (April 2020), not by later prevalence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thiele's COVID-19 infection in April 2020 was a compensable occupational disease or an ordinary disease of life | Her workplace exposure as a healthcare worker in early 2020 posed a unique, heightened hazard not faced by the general public; thus, COVID-19 should be considered an occupational disease for her. | COVID-19 is transmitted widely and not unique to healthcare settings; by 2020, was already considered an ordinary disease of life to which the public is exposed. | The court reversed summary judgment, holding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether COVID-19 was an ordinary disease of life or an occupational disease in April 2020. |
| Proper temporal focus for determining compensability (April 2020 exposure vs. later pandemic prevalence) | The compensability under the Act should hinge on the facts and risks at the time of exposure (April 2020), not subsequent wider community spread. | Current (2022) prevalence dictates that COVID-19 is now an ordinary disease; compensability should reflect contemporaneous conditions at the time of judgment. | The court agreed with Thiele, holding compensability should be analyzed at the time of exposure/injury (April 2020) and not in hindsight. |
| Sufficiency of medical evidence to support COVID-19 as occupational disease for healthcare workers | Expert testimony supported that Thiele’s employment carried greater risks, enhancing the argument this was not an ordinary disease for her role. | Defendant’s expert asserted COVID-19 is easily transmitted everywhere, with no opinion specifically excluding early 2020 as a time when it was not ordinary. | The court found expert disagreement and factual disputes, precluding summary judgment. |
| Whether the compensation court erred in granting summary judgment given disputed facts | There existed reasonable inferences and disputed facts about Thiele's occupational risks and COVID-19’s prevalence at the relevant time. | No genuine dispute existed given COVID-19’s documented community spread and medical evidence calling it an ordinary disease. | The court found summary judgment inappropriate due to these factual disputes and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritter v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 178 Neb. 792 (Neb. 1965) (clarified definition and analysis of occupational disease under Nebraska law)
- Riggs v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 173 Neb. 70 (Neb. 1961) (hazardous workplace exposure distinguishing occupational from ordinary disease)
- Osteen v. A.C. and S., Inc., 209 Neb. 282 (Neb. 1981) (mesothelioma in asbestos workers as occupational disease)
- Ludwick v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance, 267 Neb. 887 (Neb. 2004) (court as trier of fact in disputed occupational disease evidence)