Legal Update: Employer Encouragement and Vaccine-Related Injuries

On 8/19/2026, the Iowa Court of Appeals issued a decision in Larry Driscoll v. the City of Cedar Rapids. The Court ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Jason Wiltfang of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C. In its decision, the Court upheld the Commissioner’s ruling that Driscoll was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits despite sustaining an adverse reaction after receiving a non-mandatory vaccine based on the recommendation of his employer.

Driscoll, a former water distribution manager for the City of Cedar Rapids, alleges that he developed a chronic inflammatory autoimmune condition, Bell’s palsy, and hand tremors after getting vaccinated against COVID-19. The City of Cedar Rapids never mandated that its employees be vaccinated. However, during meetings, “supervisors would discuss among themselves the need to vaccinate.” Driscoll, 2026 WL 2427405 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026) at *1. Additionally, the City published a weekly newsletter for its employees that “encouraged employees to get vaccinated,” and it allowed employees to use two hours of their work time for a vaccine appointment. Id. It was within this context that Driscoll decided to get vaccinated against COVID-19. He started displaying adverse side-effects two weeks afterwards.

After becoming injured, Driscoll sought workers’ compensation benefits. At arbitration in 2023, Deputy Cleereman ruled that Driscoll’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. To support her decision, she cited a standard for compensability adapted from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law: “[W]hen the inoculation is not . . . strongly tied to the employment either by employer compulsion or by the special risks of the assignment, it may still be covered if there is a combination of strong urging by the employer and some element of mutual benefit in the form of lessened absenteeism and improved employee relationships.” Larson’s Workers’ Comp. § 27.03[2]. On appeal, however, Commissioner Cortese ruled that “section 27.03[2] was incompatible with Iowa law and Driscoll was not entitled to relief.” Driscoll at *1.

Thereafter, Driscoll sought judicial review, arguing that “the commissioner erred in rejecting the section 27.03[2] standard.” Id. On review, the Court agreed with Driscoll that the section 27.03[2] standard was compatible with Iowa law. They did not agree, however, that analyzing the facts under this standard entitled Driscoll to any relief. Instead, they found that the City’s actions with respect to the vaccine did not qualify as “strong urging.” Id. at *3.

It is worth noting that the District Court did not decide whether to affirmatively adopt the standard set forth in Larson’s Workers’ Comp. § 27.03[2], leaving that for “another day.” Id. However, the takeaway is that any party to an action involving injuries caused by a non-mandatory vaccine should be mindful of the 27.03 standard and the “strong urging” requirement. 



LINKS:

August 19, 2026: IA Court of Appeals Decision

July 18, 2025: District Court Decision

January 5, 2024: Appeal Decision

June 19, 2023: Arbitration Decision