Missouri has had relatively few decisions illuminating how the Workers’ Compensation system will handle Covid, when compared to Illinois or other Midwestern states. However, the recent case, Johnson v. RBX Transp., 726 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025), from the Southern District has shed some light on how Missouri Courts will analyze Covid.
In Johnson, the claimant worked for RBX Transportation as a load coordinator and dispatcher. In the fall of 2020, the claimant testified that neither he nor his coworkers wore masks and that there was no formal policy regarding masks. He asserted that, days before he developed symptoms, his boss was sneezing, coughing, and running a fever. The claimant stated that he had relatively minimal contact with his boss during this time, “just normal time to maybe stick my head [in] his office to ask a question,” as well as a single five-minute conversation with his boss while less than six feet away from him. A manager and other employees contradicted claimant on the issue of masks, stating that there was a policy on masks at the time and that claimant and others were wearing them at all times.
The claimant also testified as to his use of masks outside of work, asserting that, while he never wore a mask at work, he always wore a mask outside of work and spent “an hour or less” per week visiting public places outside of work. The claimant first felt COVID symptoms on October 8, 2020, tested positive the next day, and then, On October 16, began a hospitalization that lasted for 91 days because of difficulty breathing. He was also intubated and put into an induced coma for three weeks as part of this hospitalization. The claimant is now on oxygen at all times and has limitations on how much he can move. He has not worked since his COVID-19 infection due to his limited ability to talk and the fact that he must always carry his oxygen tank with him.
At trial, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant’s Covid condition was not compensable because the claimant did not sustain an occupational disease that arose in or out of the course and scope of his employment. The case was appealed and the Commission issued a Final Award Denying Compensation. That Decision was then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which also upheld the denial of benefits.
The Court began by clarifying that “the plain language of § 287.067.1…specifically carves out an exception for “ordinary diseases of life” as ineligible for compensation because the general public is exposed to them outside of a specific workplace. The only exception to this is “where the [ordinary diseases of life] follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section.” The Court noted that by the fall of 2020, Covid had become extremely widespread, with data showing that 10% of the population in SW Missouri had contracted Covid by then. The Court also highlighted that the medical experts had agreed that Covid was not novel by then and was an “ordinary disease of life.”
MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE COURT
- Whether there was an exposure to the disease which was greater than or different from that which affects the public generally, and
- Whether there was a recognizable link between the disease and some distinctive feature of the employee's job which is common to all jobs of that sort.”
The Court found that there was nothing about the claimant’s job that exposed him to Covid in a different manner from the public generally and there were no distinctive traits of his job that put him at unusual risk. Accordingly, the claimant was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits associated with his Covid condition.
The Court’s ruling in this case establishes Covid as an “ordinary disease of life,” which will set a high bar for Missouri employees who are seeking benefits from contracting Covid. However, the language of the Court still indicates that, for employment where the exposure to Covid is great or different, or where there’s a link between Covid and unique aspects of the job, Covid may still be compensable.
An Application for Transfer to Supreme Court was denied on January 13, 2026, meaning the Appellate Court Decision in Johnson v. RBX Transp., 726 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025) is now final.
WHAT LIES AHEAD
Navigating the intricacies of claims that involve allegations of occupational disease is inherently a factually nuanced assessment. This Johnson case is critical in guiding the assessment of other similar claims, with the understanding that a case-by-case analysis is always crucial. Reach out to Michael Bantz ([email protected]) and IFMK Law for questions on disease compensability in Missouri or any Missouri workers’ compensation issues!