Are Injuries from Fainting Waiting to Get Employer-Mandated Vaccine Compensable?

What Do You Think?

Milwaukie, OR (WorkersCompensation.com) – Injuries at work arising from a medical condition are generally deemed not to arise out of employment. When the source of the injury is unexplained, on the other hand, it’s often compensable. An Oregon case addresses whether a man who fainted at work could seek benefits for his resulting injuries, even though there were multiple possible medical reasons he fainted.

The employee, aged 80, was standing in line waiting to get a vaccine required by his employer. As any reasonable person, including myself, would do while waiting for a stranger  to stick him with a needle, he fainted. He fell and significantly injured himself. 

A doctor hired by the employer as well as the employee’s treating physician doctor identified several possible causes for employee’s fainting. Those causes included age, dehydration, posture, and low blood pressure from blood pressure medication. 

But, as the employee’s physician stated, while any of those conditions could have caused the man to faint, it was unclear which one, if any of them, was the cause. "So, there can be conjecture as to the cause, but no one knows for sure,” he stated.

The workers’ compensation board granted the employee’s claim for benefits. The employer appealed.

An injury is compensable under the workers’ compensation statute only if it occurs in the course of and arises out of employment. An injury will arise out of employment if it results either from a risk clearly linked to employment or a neutral risk (such as an unexplained accident). However, an injury does not arise out of employment if it results from a personal risk, such as a claimant's personal medical conditions.

When an injury (or the accident that caused it) appears to be unexplained, the initial question is whether the injury plausibly could result from a risk personal to the claimant. If there are some facially nonspeculative causes for explaining the injury, then the claimant must convince the board that the proposed cause is speculative. If the claimant succeeds, then the injury is deemed to result from a neutral risk, and thus arises out of employment.

Did the employee’s injuries arise out of his employment?

A. No. Fainting is always a personal risk.

B. Yes. The doctor's statements suggested that they could not identify the cause of his fainting with any certainty.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Kelkay v. SAIF Corp., No. A182264 (Or. Ct. App. 11/27/24), which held that the injuries arose out of the worker’s employment.

The court pointed out that the employee’s doctor’s statements showed that any trying to identify a medical condition that caused the man to faint would be just speculating.Thus, the employee met his burden to demonstrate that his injuries resulted from a neutral risk.

The court then rejected the employer’s argument that fainting can never qualify as a neutral risk, even when the reason why the employee fainted is unexplained. 

“It may be that fainting will sometimes (or often) result from a personal risk, but it does not logically follow that fainting will always result from a personal risk or that the reason why an employee fainted can never be ‘unexplained,’” the court wrote.

In fact, the court noted, both doctors  concluded that the reasons why the claimant fainted were either unknown or at most speculative. 

The court affirmed the board’s decision finding the injuries were compensable.

Share This Article: