Is COVID-19 Compensable in Iowa? Who knows? Collins v. Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

Charles Collins began working for the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) in 2018, originally as a full-time bus driver. He suffered injuries that precluded him from that job, and in June of 2020 DART placed him in a light duty position in customer service. In that job, he worked in a booth with one other employee for 35 hours per week and performed other administrative tasks the remaining hours.

In the fall of 2020, Collins learned he had a blood clot in his right foot or leg, and he was referred by his doctor to the Mayo Clinic. He and his partner drove to the Mayo Clinic on October 16, 2020. He stayed at the Mayo Clinic Hilton for three nights, which had COVID-19 protocols in place. Collins took precautions to avoid exposure to the virus on that trip.

Between October 31, 2020 and November 3, 2020, about two weeks after the trip to Mayo, DART had ten employees test positive for COVID-10. By November 5, 2020, that number had jumped to nineteen. There was no evidence Collins had direct in-person contact with any of those individuals. Due to the increase in positive cases, DART required its operators and maintenance employee to get tested, and Collins tested positive on November 6, 2020. He began having symptoms the next day. His condition deteriorated and he failed a fitness for duty exam in January that resulted in his termination from DART. His claim for workers' compensation benefits followed.

Two factual conclusions are clear from the opinions authored by the Deputy Commission, the District Court, and the Court of Appeals. First, Collins -- in his mid-sixties at the time -- and his partner were both in high risk categories if they developed the disease. As such, they took significant steps to avoid that contamination. Second, DART likewise was diligent in minimizing the exposure for its employees, adhering to the CD Guidelines and implementing contact tracing.

Both parties hired experts. The claimant's expert opined that it was more probably true than not that Collins was exposed to the virus through his work at DART. Although the doctor acknowledged DART's efforts to minimize that exposure, he ultimately concluded that "the greatest probability for Mr. Collins' exposure was during his work at DART." However, he admitted that it was unknown as to whether Mr. Collins was exposed to anyone who had the virus.

The defense expert concluded differently. He did not find a specific occupational relationship between the work and the contraction of the virus. He felt it was "impossible to state with medical certainty that the infection occurred during his employment rather than somewhere else."

Ultimately, the deputy adopted the opinions from the defense expert. He criticized the claimant's expert's opinions for several reasons. First, he pointed out that the the record was devoid of any specific contact between Colins and any individual at work who had the virus. Second, he noted that the claimant's expert did not provide any information on the the timing of his symptoms and any exposures he may have had. Further, the expert did not provide any information on how the disease was transmitted, and for these reasons felt that "there is an insufficient basis in the evidence from which to conclude it is more likely Collins contracted COVID-19 while working for DART."

In his analysis, the deputy first noted that whether COVID-19 is an "accident" under Section 85 or an "occupational disease" under Section 85 A was irrelevant as the standards for causation were the same. And, for the reasons noted above, he found that Collins had not met his burden of proving he contracted COVID-19 at work. The Commissioner affirmed the decision without a separate opinion. The District Court affirmed, and the case was transferred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals.

The Court affirmed the Commissioner, noting that although there was evidence that could have supported a different finding, their review was simply to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the award. The court noted the competing expert opinions, but ultimately held there was enough in the record to support the Commissioner's decision. "In all, Collins’s recent out-of-state travel, refusal of a COVID test despite having respiratory symptoms in September, and lack of proven exposure to any COVID-positive person while at work provide substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s finding that Collins failed to prove he contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment."

For the most part, the opinion from the Court of Appeals was a pretty standard burden of proof case that turned on the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the Court punted on what practitioners really wanted to know: Is COVID-19 a compensable condition? The Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, and the District Court all analyzed the case as a medical causation issue. And, although the Court of Appeals affirmed on that basis, they declined to address that bigger question. "And because we affirm the commissioner’s decision, we need not consider DART’s alternative argument that COVID-19 is not a compensable injury under the workers’ compensation statute." Unfortunately, that's really the question attorneys and their clients want answered.

Disclaimer:  The information provided on this legal update is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, laws and regulations are constantly evolving, and the application of law can vary based on specific facts and circumstances.

Reading this legal update does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the author, Lanham Legal Services LLC, or any affiliated individuals. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information in this blog without seeking professional legal counsel tailored to your situation.

If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

© 2025 Lanham Legal Services LLC