## “VV” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-4 (December 22, 2023) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [“VV” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-4 (December 22, 2023)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Background and procedural history - Applicant was a former contractual employee engaged as a Short-Term Expert (“STX”) who alleged a debilitating illness arising from conditions encountered during an overseas assignment and contended that the Fund wrongfully failed to seek workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. - The Fund moved for summary dismissal asserting lack of jurisdiction because Applicant was a contractual employee. The Tribunal denied that Motion in “VV”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (March 30, 2023), holding it could exercise jurisdiction over a former contractual employee’s wrongful denial of workers’ compensation benefits. - The principal issue in IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-4 was whether Applicant made a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits and, if untimely, whether exceptional circumstances or the Fund’s conduct excused the delay. The Tribunal also addressed the Fund’s duty of care, a secondary arbitration-related claim, and Applicant’s request for legal fees and costs. ### Applicable rules and timelines for reporting and claims - The Fund’s workers’ compensation policy (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Sections 1.01 and 2.01.1) applies to “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment” and affords “benefits and compensation in the event of illness, accidental injury or death arising out of, and in the course of their employment.” - The Tribunal identified differing time limits and reporting channels between GAO No. 20 and versions of the STX Handbook: - GAO No. 20: 30-day reporting requirement and up to one year for filing a claim in relation to a work-related injury or illness incurred away from Fund Headquarters. - STX Handbook: specified reporting “immediately” and making a claim within 30 days. - 2016 STX Handbook (adopted prior to Applicant’s 2017 appointment but not accessible to Applicant) required reporting to the “hiring department.” - 2009 STX Handbook (provided to Applicant and applied by the Fund) required reporting to the “HRC-Field Team.” - The Tribunal reaffirmed that the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits is a “‘statutory right’” that inheres in the internal law of the Fund at GAO No. 20 (Paras. 59-60, quoting “VV”, para. 57). ### Tribunal findings on timeliness and exceptional circumstances - The illness occurred in April 2017. - The Tribunal found that no communication by Applicant or his representatives prior to May 1, 2020 satisfied the requirements for reporting a work-related illness/injury or for filing a workers’ compensation claim. - Applicant’s May 1, 2020 communication acknowledged that he had not made an earlier claim, asserting that his medical condition had precluded him from doing so. - The Tribunal concluded: - Applicant was obliged to bring a request for workers’ compensation benefits within the applicable time limits and, having been provided access to the STX Handbook via the “IMF Expert Portal” at time of hire, must be presumed to know that a lapse of three years between the injury/illness and the making of a claim exceeded permissible time limits (Para. 79). - Whether the 30 days of the STX Handbook or the one-year practice under GAO No. 20 applied, Applicant’s claim was made far outside the prescribed time limits (Para. 74). - Within the three-year period following the April 2017 injury/illness, Applicant took actions seeking other benefits but did not file a claim under the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy; the Tribunal was not persuaded that Applicant’s medical condition excused the more than three-year delay (Para. 80). - Result: The Tribunal denied Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits as untimely. ### Duty of care: obligations and failures identified by the Tribunal - The Tribunal emphasized that the Fund has a duty of care to protect the health and safety of its employees and that providing workers’ compensation benefits is one way it discharges that duty (Para. 83). - Failures by the Fund found by the Tribunal: - Failure to provide Applicant with effective access to the governing version of the STX Handbook; Applicant did not have access to the text of GAO No. 20, which was incorporated by reference in his contract (Para. 85). - Failure to inform managers and human resources officials of the correct internal law and to give managers guidance on how to respond when an STX incurred an illness or injury that might be compensable (Para. 90). - Failure of Fund managers and HRD officials, who knew of Applicant’s serious illness upon his return from assignment, to advise Applicant of the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program (Para. 88). - Failure to inform Applicant correctly of all available avenues of recourse when his request for workers’ compensation was denied; the Fund failed at two junctures to advise Applicant that further recourse was open to him (Paras. 92–93). - Legal significance: - Employees are “entitled to have access to the governing [law] and to assume that the Fund is relying on the correct version of its internal law” (Para. 85). - “Allowing the dispute to flow unimpeded through the channels of review is integral to giving effect to the Fund’s duty of care” in cases of alleged work-related illness or injury (Para. 93). ### Remedies, compensation, and costs - Despite denying the workers’ compensation claim as untimely, the Tribunal held that the Fund’s failures in meeting its duty of care entitled Applicant to compensation for intangible injury because the decision denying the claim was marked by those failures (Para. 100). - Awards ordered by the Tribunal: - Compensation for intangible injury: $60,000. - Legal fees and costs: the Tribunal ordered the Fund to pay 60 percent of the legal fees and costs incurred by Applicant, in the amount of $58,452.17. - Principles applied to costs assessment: - Fee awards must be “reasonable” pursuant to Article XIV(4) of the Tribunal’s Statute, applying proportionality where an applicant prevails only in part. - The Tribunal weighed that Applicant prevailed on admissibility, did not prevail on his principal timely-claim argument, and that the contested decision was marked by a duty-of-care failure that warranted compensation. - The Tribunal also considered the “necessity of the legal work” and whether material submitted was relevant or unnecessarily duplicative (Para. 112). ### Other jurisdictional finding - The Tribunal concluded it was without jurisdiction to decide Applicant’s secondary complaint challenging aspects of an arbitration proceeding that had preceded his Tribunal Application; challenges to the fairness of arbitration procedures applicable to contractual employees do not fall within the Tribunal’s competence. ### Overall outcome - The Tribunal sustained the Fund’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits as untimely. - The Tribunal found the denial decision was marked by the Fund’s failure to meet its duty of care and awarded compensation for intangible injury in the sum of $60,000. - The Tribunal ordered the Fund to pay 60 percent of Applicant’s legal fees and costs, amounting to $58,452.17. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4-summary.pdf_