(The Center Square) – A Pennsylvania ICU nurse has won a major legal victory in a rare case involving COVID-19 vaccine mandates and their intersection with workers’ compensation law.
Kathleen Fee was injured on the job and later fired after her requests for religious and medical vaccine exemptions were denied. When her employer attempted to terminate her workers’ compensation benefits, Fee fought back – and ultimately prevailed in Commonwealth Court.
According to court documents, Fee was injured in September 2021 while working at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, owned and operated by Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. The facility closed in April as part of the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Shortly after being placed on light-duty work and transferred to another unit, Fee was terminated for failure to comply with the hospital’s vaccine mandate. She had twice submitted exemption requests – both religious and medical – but they were denied.
Jerry Lehocky, founding partner at Pond Lehocky Giordano, the firm representing Fee, told The Center Square that in addition to being a 31-year employee with an exemplary record, she is also an ordained minister who actively participates in her church.
Lehocky said a key takeaway from this case is how fear and misinformation shaped decisions in late 2021. He also noted that, in hindsight, the government guidance we relied on turned out to be largely inaccurate.
With the fear meter at an all-time high, some employers required masks while others imposed vaccine mandates – often denying even documented exemption requests.
He noted that when Fee was hurt in September, she was already persevering through pain from a previous injury sustained months earlier. She continued to work in the ICU while training for her light-duty position in the detox unit.
In addition to providing documentation from her church, she obtained paperwork from her doctors verifying a family history of autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis.
Lehocky stressed that Fee’s fears were justified, saying their firm has dealt with multiple cases involving individuals who developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome, allergic reactions, blindness, and other disabilities following mandatory vaccinations – often due to a bad batch, or the triggering of a comorbid condition.
He also pointed out that after Fee’s exemption requests were denied, her union filed a grievance request that was ultimately lost in arbitration. While unusual, he said, it underscores the intense climate of fear that prevailed at the time.
Under Pennsylvania law, Lehocky said, when an employee is assigned light-duty work due to a job-related injury, and that position is eliminated through no fault of their own, the workers’ compensation insurer is required to pay benefits – unless and until the employer offers a comparable alternative role.
Fee’s legal team filed the initial petition in 2022, and after a year of pursuing litigation, a Workers’ Compensation Judge found her medical claims credible, awarded her benefits, and rejected her employer’s petition to terminate them – disputing their claim that she acted in bad faith by refusing the vaccine.
Lehocky said it’s important to recognize that credibility determinations – who a judge chooses to believe – are protected by law and cannot be overturned on appeal. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board ignored that standard. Without presenting any opposing evidence, the Board concluded Fee’s reasons for refusing the vaccine were “vague” and reversed the judge’s ruling.
Fee appealed to the Commonwealth Court, one step below the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the Board had overstepped its authority.
Citing case law, the court emphasized that appellate bodies must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level, which in this case is Fee. They concluded she had legitimate medical and religious grounds for refusing the vaccine and reinstated her benefits.
Fee continues to receive treatment for her injuries and testified that she would return to a light-duty role if offered one, but the position she was training for no longer exists. As of now, she is owed more than one year’s benefits.
The Court’s opinion, dated June 30, gives Prospect Medical Holdings one month to appeal. While Lehocky doesn’t expect them to, he warned he will go after them for noncompliance if Fee doesn’t receive her benefits soon.
“I am honored to be able to represent these people,” said Lehocky. “These are hardworking men and women who are getting the short end of a stick. My job is to get the other end back for them.”
