## Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 2023-4 — “VV” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 2023-4 — “VV” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4.pdf.json)

---

### Tribunal composition, parties, and procedural timeline
- Tribunal composed under Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute of Judge Edith Brown Weiss (acting as President), and Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda.
- Applicant: “VV”, former contractual Short-Term Expert (“STX”) of the Fund; represented by Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund; represented by Mr. Brian Patterson and Mr. Yongqing Liu.
- Selected procedural dates:
  - May 25, 2022: Applicant filed the Application (transmitted to Respondent on May 26, 2022).
  - March 30, 2023: Tribunal denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal in IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3.
  - May 15, 2023: Respondent filed its Answer.
  - June 15, 2023: Applicant filed his Reply.
  - July 19, 2023: Respondent filed its Rejoinder.
  - November 3, 2023: Oral proceedings held by electronic means in private.
  - November 27, 2023: Applicant filed Supplemental Request for legal fees and costs.
  - December 4, 2023: Respondent filed Response to Supplemental Request.
  - November 20, 2023: Tribunal closed the record after transmissions on November 13–15, 2023.

### Nature of dispute and remedies sought
- Applicant alleges:
  - Fund wrongfully failed to seek workers’ compensation on his behalf for a debilitating illness allegedly arising from Fund employment and later thwarted his efforts to seek such compensation.
  - Denial of due process in an arbitration proceeding.
- Applicant sought:
  - rescission of the Fund’s decision rejecting his workers’ compensation claim;
  - submission of his workers’ compensation claim for decision by an independent evaluator under Tribunal supervision;
  - one million U.S. dollars in “actual, moral and intangible damages” (US$1,000,000);
  - legal fees and costs (statutory authority: Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute).

### Key factual allegations and administrative history
- Employment and exposure:
  - Applicant employed as an STX in 2017; accepted appointment via the “IMF Expert Portal”.
  - Alleged severe mosquito bites in a Zika virus zone beginning March 26, 2017; fell ill after return on April 7, 2017.
- Medical course:
  - Hospitalized beginning April 17, 2017; diagnosed with Guillain–Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) on April 18, 2017.
  - Hospitalization and intensive care continued through July 18, 2018; rehabilitation until August 17, 2018; outpatient therapy through July 2019.
  - Applicant alleges inability to care for himself thereafter.
- Administrative submissions:
  - May 1, 2020: Applicant submitted a “Claim for Loss of Compensation…” stating inability earlier to file due to medications, therapy routines, lethargy, depression and mental anguish.
  - June 18, 2020: HRD Division Chief responded the claim was untimely per STX Handbook time limits and could not be accepted for processing.
  - December 10, 2020: Request for Administrative Review (invoking Staff Handbook Ch. 11.03, Section 4.3.2); February 22, 2021: HRD Director issued Review Decision finding untimely under STX Handbook and related provisions and advising right to arbitration.
  - July 1, 2021: Applicant filed Request for Arbitration; February 25, 2022: Arbitrator granted Fund’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to request Administrative Review within 90 days; May 25, 2022: Applicant filed Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Evidentiary requests and Tribunal rulings (selected)
- Applicant requests:
  - Request (a): Documents from 2016–17 re: STXH Workers’ Compensation (WC) notification and implementation — Tribunal granted.
  - Request (b): All non-privileged documents from 2016 to present relating to Applicant’s health, benefits and claims — Tribunal denied as irrelevant to timeliness issues.
- Respondent requests:
  - Request (a): Records of hospitalization/Medicare claims from April 2017 to present — Tribunal granted as modified to period “from the onset of Applicant’s illness until May 1, 2020.”
  - Request (b): Documents demonstrating Applicant’s income 2015 to present — Tribunal denied as irrelevant.
  - Request (c): Documents showing actual expenditures or costs sought — Tribunal denied as premature.
  - Request (d): Documents from 2015–2017 reflecting symptoms, diagnoses, treatment and vaccination history relevant to GBS causation — Tribunal denied as premature.
- Tribunal admitted an affidavit of Applicant’s former manager to the record (November 7, 2023) for its limited value and allowed Respondent to comment; record closed on November 20, 2023.

### Oral proceedings
- Applicant requested hearing for counsel’s argument and testimony of four witnesses under Rule XIII; Respondent opposed.
- September 26, 2023: Tribunal granted oral argument but denied witness testimony.
- Oral proceedings held November 3, 2023 by electronic means, in private; Tribunal found them useful.

### Applicable policy framework and incorporation into contract
- GAO No. 20, Rev. 3 (“workers’ compensation policy”) provides benefits for illness or accidental injury “arising out of, and in the course of, their employment.” (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 1.01.)
- GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 2.01.1 applies to “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
- STX Handbook incorporated into Applicant’s letter of appointment; the Handbook in turn incorporates GAO No. 20.
- GAO No. 20, Rev. 3:
  - Section 9.01–9.03: reporting requirements (Headquarters and outside Washington), submission of physician-certified statements, and submission of claims for disposition.
  - Section 10.01–10.02: procedures for disposition of claims, Claim Administrator role, and right of appeal.
  - GAO No. 20 refers to a 30-day period for reporting illness or injury incurred away from Headquarters (Section 9.02) but does not specify a time limit for submission of a workers’ compensation claim (Section 9.03).
  - Respondent represented it applies a one-year time limit for submission of workers’ compensation claims by regular staff members.
- STX Handbook:
  - 2009 version, Section VII: requires claims “filed within 30 days of the accident or onset of the illness” and reporting to the HRC-Field Team.
  - 2016 version (adopted prior to Applicant’s 2017 appointment): designates the “hiring department” as point of contact and retains 30-day filing language; record indicates Fund persisted in applying 2009 version in Applicant’s case.

### Tribunal findings on timeliness
- Record indicates Applicant did not make a workers’ compensation claim prior to May 1, 2020.
- May 1, 2020 claim is more than three years after April 2017 occurrence.
- Whether measured by the STX Handbook’s 30-day rule or the Fund’s one-year practice under GAO No. 20, Applicant’s claim was outside prescribed time limits.
- Tribunal concludes Applicant did not make a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits and therefore that claim must be denied.

### Tribunal findings on exceptional circumstances and medical incapacity
- Applicant’s assertion: he “was not physically or mentally able” to file until May 2020.
- Respondent’s assertion: Applicant had access to the STX Handbook via IMF Expert Portal and failed to show inability to file within time limits; medical and other records do not support inability until May 2020.
- Tribunal reasoning:
  - Time limits serve purposes of enabling timely investigation and the Fund’s monitoring of potential liability (citing ILOAT Judgment No. 3949 (2017), Consideration 3).
  - Applicant had access to the STX Handbook through the IMF Expert Portal when accepting appointment; presumed notice that a three-year lapse exceeded permissible time limits.
  - Applicant took other actions within the three-year period relevant to benefits and disability without filing a workers’ compensation claim.
- Tribunal conclusion: Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances excusing delay; late filing not excused.

### Tribunal findings on duty of care and disclosure obligations
- Duty of care:
  - Fund has duty to protect health and safety of employees and to provide effective access to workers’ compensation procedures; the workers’ compensation policy ordinarily supplies the exclusive remedy.
  - Fund must provide employees, including STX employees, with effective access to the relevant documents and avenues of recourse.
- Shortcomings identified:
  - Fund relied on and used the 2009 STX Handbook when the 2016 version was in place before Applicant’s 2017 appointment; Applicant had access only to the 2009 version.
  - As an STX, Applicant did not have direct access to the text of GAO No. 20.
  - Fund managers and HRD officials had not been given guidance on responding when an STX incurred an illness or injury potentially compensable under GAO No. 20.
  - HRD officials knew of Applicant’s serious illness through exchanges with family representatives but did not inform Applicant concerning the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program.
- Tribunal conclusion: Fund’s failure, when Applicant fell ill in April 2017, to bring the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program to Applicant’s attention constituted a failure to meet its duty of care.

### Obligation to inform about avenues of recourse
- Organizational responsibility:
  - When an employee raises a complaint arising from Fund employment and that complaint is denied, the Fund must inform the employee of all available avenues of recourse.
  - Exercising review channels, up to Tribunal review, is a fundamental right of international civil servants.
- Instances of failure to advise:
  - June 18, 2020 HR Division Chief’s letter rejecting May 1, 2020 submission appeared to treat matter as closed and did not advise further recourse.
  - Fund did not respond to August 5, 2020 counsel follow-up alleging negligence or intent to pursue civil damages.
- Tribunal conclusion: Fund failed to inform Applicant of available avenues of recourse after he raised a claim; this was a failure to meet its duty of care.
- Tribunal notes it lacks jurisdiction to consider Applicant’s allegations challenging aspects of the arbitration that preceded the Application to the Tribunal.

### Remedies: legal basis, findings, and awards
- Legal authority:
  - Article XIV, Section 1 of the Statute authorizes rescission of contested decisions and measures to correct effects, including monetary compensation.
  - Established categories of remedial powers include rescission with corrective measures, compensation for intangible injury from procedural failure, and compensation for intangible injury from failure to act in accordance with legal obligations.
- Tribunal rulings:
  - Applicant did not make a timely request for workers’ compensation; principal claim for workers’ compensation benefits denied.
  - Respondent’s decision to deny Applicant’s request for compensation was marked by a failure to meet its duty of care.
- Awards:
  - Compensation for intangible injury consequent to failure to meet duty of care: $60,000.
    - Two elements of intangible injury identified:
      - Failure in April 2017 to draw attention to possible relevance of workers’ compensation policy when Applicant fell seriously ill with GBS.
      - Denial in May 2020 of Applicant’s claim without information on further recourse and subsequent silence to follow-up query.
  - Legal fees and costs:
    - Applicant sought $97,420.28 in legal fees and costs.
    - Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, Tribunal awarded 60 percent of total fees and costs, amounting to $58,452.17.
- Final Tribunal decision outcomes:
  - Applicant’s principal claim for workers’ compensation benefits denied as untimely.
  - Award of $60,000 for intangible injury.
  - Award to Applicant of $58,452.17 representing 60 percent of legal fees and costs claimed.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Judgment (December 22, 2023).*

### INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................

### INTRODUCTION

### Tribunal composition and parties
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (“Tribunal”) for this case was composed, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, of Judge Edith Brown Weiss (acting as President for the case), and Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda.
- Applicant: “VV”, a former contractual employee of the Fund.
- Applicant was represented by Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek, Law Offices of Peter C. Hansen, LLC.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund (“Respondent” or “Fund”), represented by Mr. Brian Patterson, Assistant General Counsel, and Mr. Yongqing Liu, Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department.

### Nature of the dispute and relief sought
- Applicant alleges the Fund wrongfully failed to seek workers’ compensation on his behalf when he suffered a debilitating illness allegedly arising from his Fund employment, and that the Fund later thwarted his efforts to seek such compensation.
- Applicant also alleges denial of due process in an arbitration proceeding concerning the dispute.
- Applicant seeks:
  - rescission of the Fund’s decision to reject Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation;
  - submission of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim for decision by an independent evaluator, under the Tribunal’s supervision;
  - one million U.S. dollars in “actual, moral and intangible damages”;
  - legal fees and costs, which the Tribunal may award under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute if the Application is well-founded in whole or in part.

### Preliminary jurisdictional ruling and Respondent’s position
- In IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (March 30, 2023) (“VV”), the Tribunal denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal and concluded Respondent had not shown the Application was “clearly inadmissible” under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- The Tribunal held it has jurisdiction ratione personæ and ratione materiæ, pursuant to Article II, Section 1(b) of the Statute, over an application by a former contractual employee alleging wrongful denial of workers’ compensation benefits, while leaving open whether Applicant’s claim was timely.
- Respondent maintains in the merits phase that Applicant’s claim is untimely—asserting Applicant did not raise a claim until more than three years after the events on which the claim is founded—and that no exceptional circumstances excuse the delay; Respondent also denies Applicant’s allegations concerning the arbitration process.

### Procedural timeline (selected key dates)
- May 25, 2022: Applicant filed the Application (transmitted to Respondent on May 26, 2022).
- June 1, 2022: Registrar circulated notice within the Fund pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f).
- March 30, 2023: Tribunal denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal in IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3.
- May 15, 2023: Respondent filed its Answer.
- June 15, 2023: Applicant filed his Reply.
- July 19, 2023: Respondent filed its Rejoinder.
- August 10, 2023: Tribunal notified parties of decisions on document requests and deferred decision on oral proceedings.
- August 24, 2023: Deadline for parties to submit documents responsive to granted Requests.
- September 5, 2023: Deadline for parties to file Comments on documents produced by the other.
- November 6, 2023: Respondent filed Comments on Applicant’s request to submit an affidavit of Applicant’s former manager.
- November 7, 2023: Tribunal admitted the affidavit to the record and rendered a decision on compliance with its August 10, 2023 Decision on Document Requests.
- November 13, 2023: Applicant filed his Response to the Tribunal’s decision on compliance.
- November 15, 2023: Respondent filed Comments on the affidavit of Applicant’s former manager.
- November 20, 2023: Tribunal transmitted Applicant’s Response and Respondent’s Comments to the opposing party and closed the record.

### Procedural rule references
- Article VII, Section 4 (Statute): procedure for composition when the President is recused or unable to hear a case.
- Article II, Section 1(b) (Statute): Tribunal competence over applications by enrollees or beneficiaries challenging administrative acts concerning benefit plans maintained by the Fund.
- Rule IV, para. (f) (Rules of Procedure): Registrar notice procedure within the Fund.
- Rule XII (Summary Dismissal) (Rules of Procedure): standard for denying summary dismissal when not “clearly inadmissible.”
- Rule XVII (Production of Documents) (Rules of Procedure): invoked by both parties for evidentiary requests.
- Rule XI (Additional Pleadings) (Rules of Procedure): standards for admitting additional submissions.
- Rule XIII(1) (Rules of Procedure) and Article XII (Statute): standards for determining whether oral proceedings are warranted.

### Evidentiary requests and Tribunal rulings (summarized)
- Applicant’s document requests:
  - Request (a): All documents from 2016–17 detailing how the Short-Term Expert’s Handbook’s (STXH’s) Workers’ Compensation (WC) provisions were to be noticed and explained to STX, implemented in individual cases, by whom, and through whom.
    - Tribunal granted Request (a), finding questions about notification and implementation relevant to whether exceptional circumstances excuse Applicant’s delayed approach to HRD; ordered Fund to produce responsive documents not already in the record or state explicitly if none exist.
  - Request (b): All non-privileged documents from 2016 to present relating to Applicant’s health, benefits and claims.
    - Tribunal denied Request (b) as seeking documents “irrelevant to the issues of the case” (Rule XVII), given the case concerns timeliness of a workers’ compensation claim and short-term medical insurance for STX employees covers only non-service-related injury or illness.
- Respondent’s document requests:
  - Request (a): All records of hospitalization or Medicare claims filed by Applicant (or representative) from April 2017 to present that may have asked whether the illness was work-related or covered by workers’ compensation or other benefits, and all records of reports or notifications submitted.
    - Tribunal granted Respondent’s Request (a) as modified to the period “from the onset of Applicant’s illness until May 1, 2020,” finding relevance to timeliness and Respondent’s contention Applicant sought reimbursement through other mechanisms.
  - Request (b): All documents demonstrating Applicant’s income from any source, including tax returns, for 2015 to present.
    - Tribunal denied Request (b) as seeking documents “irrelevant to the issues of the case” (Rule XVII).
  - Request (c): All documents showing actual expenditures or costs for which Applicant seeks payment.
    - Tribunal denied Request (c) as premature because it relates to requests for relief.
  - Request (d): All documents from 2015–2017 reflecting symptoms, diagnoses or treatment for various infections and vaccination history associated with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) causation.
    - Tribunal denied Request (d) as premature because causation would be decided only after a finding that Applicant made a timely claim.
- Additional procedural actions:
  - April 13, 2023: Applicant submitted a Request for Documents and for an Evidentiary Hearing; Respondent had opportunity to respond in its Answer.
  - July 31, 2023 / August 3, 2023: Applicant sought admission of an additional submission; Tribunal declined admission except for one exhibit, finding no “exceptional” circumstances under Rule XI.
  - November 6–7, 2023: Tribunal admitted an affidavit of Applicant’s former manager to the record for its limited value to decision-making and allowed Respondent to respond.
  - Record closure: Tribunal advised parties the record was closed after November 20, 2023 transmissions.

### Issues identified for resolution
- Whether Applicant made a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits and what procedural steps and time limits applied under the Fund’s Workers’ Compensation Policy (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3) and the STX Handbook.
- Whether exceptional circumstances excuse any late filing of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim.
- Whether Respondent met its duty of care in relation to Applicant’s alleged work-related injury or illness.
- Related questions concerning workers’ compensation claims procedures, causation issues, and Applicant’s right to recourse.

_Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Judgment No. 2023-4, “VV” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund_

### 30. Pursuant to Rule XIII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Applicant requested a “hearing

### Oral Proceedings and Factual Background — Applicant’s Workers’ Compensation Claim (j2023-4 - 30)

### Oral proceedings and procedural timeline
- Applicant requested a hearing for counsels’ argument and testimony of four witnesses pursuant to Rule XIII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure; Respondent opposed on grounds that the written record was sufficient.
- On September 26, 2023, the Tribunal granted Applicant’s request for oral arguments of parties’ counsel and denied the request for witness hearings.
- The Tribunal decided the proceedings would be held “by electronic means,” in accordance with Article XI of the Tribunal’s Statute, and would be “held in private,” per Article XII of the Statute and Rule XIII(1), because the Tribunal had earlier granted Applicant anonymity.
- The oral proceedings were held on November 3, 2023; the Tribunal found them useful in elucidating the issues of the case.
- Following the oral proceedings, Applicant was invited to supplement his request for legal fees and costs; the Supplemental Request was filed on November 27, 2023. Respondent’s Response was filed on December 4, 2023 and transmitted to Applicant.

### Key factual background (disputed elements noted)
- Employment and appointment:
  - Applicant was employed in 2017 as a contractual employee of the Fund, specifically as a Short-Term Expert (“STX”), in a location away from Fund Headquarters.
  - Applicant had worked for the Fund on intermittent contractual assignments since 2010.
  - Applicant accepted his 2017 appointment through the “IMF Expert Portal.” The letter of appointment stated in part: “In the performance of your duties, you will be responsible to, and under the sole direction of the Fund and will report to the . . . Department.”
  - The letter of appointment provided that the appointment “will be governed by the terms and conditions specified in this letter and by the administrative procedures, rules, benefits, and services generally applicable or available to Short-Term Experts in the Fund, as described in the Handbook for Short-Term Expert Appointments. In the event of a conflict between this appointment letter and the Handbook, the appointment letter will prevail.” The letter stated that it “constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Fund.”
  - A screenshot indicates that an “STX Handbook” was among the documents available to Applicant on the IMF Expert Portal.
- Illness and treatment chronology alleged by Applicant:
  - Applicant alleges that, beginning March 26, 2017, while overseas on his STX assignment and staying at Fund-reserved accommodations, he was severely bitten by mosquitoes in a Zika virus zone.
  - Applicant alleges he fell ill when he returned home on April 7, 2017.
  - Beginning April 17, 2017, Applicant was hospitalized; on April 18, 2017, he was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) said to have arisen from mosquito-borne Zika virus.
  - Hospitalization, including periods in intensive care, continued through July 18, 2018, when he was released from an acute care hospital and entered a rehabilitation facility until August 17, 2018.
  - He later engaged in outpatient therapy through July 2019.
  - Applicant alleges his health condition has left him unable to care for himself.
- Fund officials’ engagement:
  - In the weeks following the end of Applicant’s assignment and the onset of his illness, Fund officials, including Applicant’s manager and HRD personnel, engaged in exchanges with Applicant’s family representatives relating to winding up his Fund assignment.
  - Applicant’s manager stated in an affidavit that he visited Applicant while hospitalized and in other treatment facilities and reported on Applicant’s condition to others in the department.

### Administrative submissions and HRD responses
- May 1, 2020: Applicant submitted via the Fund’s “HR Center” mailbox a “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage.” Applicant stated inter alia that he was not physically or mentally able to make the claim earlier due to medications, therapy routines, lethargy, depression and mental anguish, and that he had to meet with family to ascertain the proper chronology.
- June 18, 2020: A Division Chief in HRD responded that Applicant’s claim was untimely under the terms of his short-term contract and the Short-Term Expert Handbook: the Handbook requires a written complaint to the Director of Human Resources “no later than 90 days after the date you learned or could reasonably have learned of the alleged breach of the Fund’s obligations.” The Division Chief noted Applicant was officially diagnosed with Guillain-Barré on April 18, 2017, and thus needed to submit by no later than July 18, 2017; it was “almost three years beyond that date,” so the IMF could not accept the claim for processing.
- August 5, 2020: Applicant’s local counsel wrote alleging IMF negligence or willful disregard and stating Applicant had been unable to make the claim within 90 days due to his impairment; the Fund acknowledges it did not respond to that letter.
- December 10, 2020: Applicant, via current counsel, submitted to the HRD Director a “Request for Administrative Review (Injury and Disability)” invoking Staff Handbook (Ch. 11.03, Section 4.3.2) procedures (six-month rule) and stating that if HRD Director affirmed the threshold dismissal, the next step would be arbitration per Article XVI of the Short-Term Expert Handbook (“STEH”).
- February 22, 2021: HRD Director issued a Review Decision concluding the Request was untimely under the STX Handbook (Section XVI) and related provisions:
  - STX Handbook, Section XVI requires a written complaint “no later than 90 days after the date you learned or could reasonably have learned of the alleged breach of the Fund’s obligations.”
  - STX Handbook, Section VII (Workers’ Compensation Program, 2009 version) requires claims “filed within 30 days of the accident or onset of the illness” and accompanied by a physician’s report.
  - HRD Director stated that Applicant failed to demonstrate “special and unusual circumstances” justifying a waiver of the applicable time limits and advised Applicant he may file a written complaint with the Fund’s designated arbitrator “within sixty days of [Applicant’s] receipt of this memorandum.”
- July 1, 2021: Following an agreed extension, Applicant filed his Request for Arbitration. The Fund moved to dismiss.

### Arbitration and Tribunal filings
- February 25, 2022: Arbitrator granted the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss, finding Applicant failed to request Administrative Review within the applicable 90-day period under the STX Handbook and that no exceptional circumstances excused the delay. The Arbitrator did not decide whether Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim itself was timely.
- March 23, 2022: Applicant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Arbitrator’s Decision; Fund replied April 22, 2022; May 19, 2022: Arbitrator denied reconsideration.
- May 25, 2022: Applicant filed his Application with the Administrative Tribunal. After the Tribunal denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal in “VV,” pleadings on the merits resumed.

### Parties’ principal contentions
- Applicant’s principal contentions:
  - He suffered a debilitating illness in the course of his Fund employment and complied with the Fund’s requirements for seeking workers’ compensation.
  - The Fund was aware of his condition but failed to seek workers’ compensation on his behalf.
  - The Fund wrongfully rejected his workers’ compensation presentation, treated it as litigation, and failed to process his request for relief.
  - The Fund’s arbitration was not consistent with due process, ignored AAA rules, and was biased and abusive.
  - Relief sought includes:
    - rescission of the Fund’s decision rejecting his workers’ compensation claim;
    - submission of his workers’ compensation claim to an independent evaluator versed in District of Columbia law, with the evaluator engaged, paid, supervised and evaluated by the Tribunal (with reimbursement by the Fund), free to decide on eligibility subject only to the Tribunal’s evaluation, and with stipulations that the claim is timely and retroactive to April 18, 2017, and that his course of health shall not reduce any award though it may increase an otherwise due amount;
    - one million U.S. dollars (US$1,000,000) in actual, moral and intangible damages;
    - reimbursement of all fees and costs incurred in seeking and vindicating his right to workers’ compensation.
- Respondent’s principal contentions:
  - Applicant was required to report and make any claim within the time limits prescribed by the Fund’s internal law, and he failed to do so.
  - No exceptional circumstances justify waiver of the time limits.
  - Applicant’s allegations of mistreatment by the Fund in handling his claim are unfounded.
  - None of Applicant’s requested remedies is warranted.

### Issues for Tribunal decision and applicable policy framework
- Principal questions for decision:
  - Did Applicant make a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits? If not, the claim must be denied; if yes, the Tribunal will consider appropriate further action.
  - Did Respondent meet its duty of care in relation to Applicant’s alleged work-related injury or illness?
- Applicable workers’ compensation policy:
  - The Fund’s workers’ compensation policy (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3) provides employees with “benefits and compensation in the event of illness, accidental injury or death arising out of, and in the course of their employment.” (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 1.01.)
  - The policy provides benefits “irrespective of [the eligible employee’s] location at the time of service-connected injury or death, subject to the exclusions set out in subsection 2.01.4.” (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 3.01.)

*Source: Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Tribunal notifications, oral proceedings, HRD Review Decision, arbitration filings, and related case pleadings.*

### 59. As the Tribunal determined in “VV”, para. 57, “Applicant comes within the coverage of

### Tribunal determination on Applicant’s workers’ compensation coverage and claim

### Coverage and incorporation of GAO No. 20 into Applicant’s contract
- The Tribunal determined in “VV”, para. 57, that “Applicant comes within the coverage of the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy not because his contract or the STXH says he does but because GAO No. 20 has provided, since 1982, that it applies to ‘any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.’ (GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 2.01.1.)”
- The STX Handbook and Applicant’s letter of appointment only “notified Applicant of his statutory right.” (Id.)
- Applicant’s letter of appointment states: “This letter of appointment, including any documents incorporated by reference herein, constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Fund.” The letter incorporated the STX Handbook, which in turn incorporated the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy GAO No. 20.
- The HRD Director, in denying the Request for Administrative Review, quoted Section VII (Workers’ Compensation Program) of the Short-Term Experts Handbook and referred to the Fund’s workers compensation policy as codified in Staff Handbook, Chapter, 8.01, Section 4.

### Reporting requirements and submission of claims under GAO No. 20 (Rev. 3)
- GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 9 (Report of Injury or Illness) and Section 10 (Disposition of Claims) provide the following:
  - 9.01 Staff Members at Headquarters:
    - 9.01.1 Report to the Health Room: “No matter how minor, injuries arising out of, and in the course of, employment with the Fund must be immediately reported to the Health Room... The nurse in the Health Room shall immediately report the accident to the Staff Benefits Division of the Administration Department.”
    - 9.01.2 Report to the Staff Benefits Division: if staff member or attending physician believes illness or injury is related to employment, “it shall be the staff member’s responsibility to inform the Staff Benefits Division, in writing, without delay.” If absent because of service-connected injury or illness, notify Staff Benefits Division upon return to work, or “not later than 30 days after the occurrence of the accident or illness, whichever is earlier or applicable.”
  - 9.02 Staff Members Outside Washington: a written report to the Staff Benefits Division “not later than 30 days after the occurrence of the accident or illness, or upon return to work, whichever is earlier or applicable.”
  - 9.03 Submission of Claim for Disposition: staff member shall submit a certified statement by the attending physician with details as to nature, diagnosis and treatment; bills and receipts required if reimbursement is claimed.
  - 10.01 Procedure for the Disposition of Claims: Staff Benefits Division assists staff in filing claims with the Claim Administrator; claims disposed first on basis of this Order and next in accordance with District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Regulations; if Administrator finds liability, claims paid per subsection 10.03; if no liability, staff member informed by Staff Benefits Division.
  - 10.02 Right of Appeal: staff member may appeal Claim Administrator’s finding to the Grievance Committee under procedures set forth in subsection 4.01 of General Administrative Order No. 31, Rev. 1.
- Notable procedural timeframes and practices:
  - GAO No. 20 refers to a 30-day period for reporting illness or injury incurred away from Headquarters (Section 9.02).
  - GAO No. 20 does not specify a time limit for the submission of a workers’ compensation claim (Section 9.03).
  - Respondent represented that it applies a one-year time limit for the submission of workers’ compensation claims by regular staff members.

### STX Handbook provisions and which version applied
- The STX Handbook provisions differed between the 2009 and 2016 versions.
  - The record indicates the Fund persisted in applying the 2009 STX Handbook in Applicant’s case, despite the 2016 version having been adopted prior to Applicant’s 2017 appointment.
- 2009 STX Handbook, Section VII (Workers’ Compensation Program) as quoted by HRD Director:
  - “Any Fund work-related injury or illness should be reported immediately to the HRC-Field Team. Claims should be filed within 30 days of the accident or onset of the illness and must be accompanied by a report from the expert’s physician providing a full diagnosis, an account of the treatment given, and an explanation of the extent of the expert’s illness or injury and how it occurred.”
- 2016 STX Handbook provides:
  - “Experts of the Fund are covered by the Fund’s workers’ compensation program... The Fund’s workers’ compensation policy is set out in General Administrative Order No. 20, Revision 3... Any Fund work-related injury or illness should be reported immediately to the hiring department. Claims should be filed within 30 days of the accident or onset of the illness and must be accompanied by a report from the expert’s physician...”

### Timeliness of Applicant’s claim and Tribunal findings
- Disputed timelines and required steps:
  - GAO No. 20 specifies a 30-day reporting requirement and allows up to one year for filing a claim in relation to an injury or illness incurred away from Headquarters.
  - The STX Handbook specifies reporting “immediately” and making a claim within 30 days.
  - The 2009 STX Handbook requires reporting to the “HRC-Field Team”; the 2016 version requires reporting to the “hiring department.”
- Record on when Applicant initiated the workers’ compensation process:
  - Applicant’s “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage” is dated May 1, 2020; in it Applicant indicated he had not made any prior claim and that “Only now am I able to make this claim. I was not physically or mentally able to do so before due to medications, involvement in daily therapy routines and lethargy brought on by depression and mental anguish.”
  - In his December 10, 2020 Request for Administrative Review, Applicant confirmed he sought “. . . compensation for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) suffered in service to the Fund, and which incapacitated him from 2017 until mid-2020, when he filed a claim for workers’ compensation (‘WC’).”
- Tribunal’s conclusions on timeliness:
  - The Tribunal was not persuaded that any communication prior to May 1, 2020 satisfied reporting or claim-filing requirements.
  - Applicant did not make a claim until at least May 1, 2020, which was more than three years after the occurrence of the injury or illness in April 2017.
  - 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 prescribed time limits.
  - The Tribunal concludes Applicant did not make a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits and therefore that claim must be denied.

### Exceptional circumstances and Applicant’s medical condition
- Parties’ positions:
  - Applicant asserts he “was not physically or mentally able” to file a claim until May 2020.
  - Respondent contends Applicant had access to the STX Handbook and was obligated to file within prescribed limits; medical and other records do not support inability until May 2020.
- Tribunal reasoning and precedent:
  - Citing ILOAT Judgment No. 3949 (2017), Consideration 3, the Tribunal notes time limits serve purposes including enabling timely investigation when facts are fresh and enabling the organization to monitor potential financial liability.
  - Applicant was provided access to the STX Handbook via the “IMF Expert Portal” through which he accepted his appointment; thus Applicant must be presumed to know that a three-year lapse exceeded permissible time limits.
  - Within the three-year period following April 2017, Applicant took other actions seeking benefits relevant to his medical condition and alleged disability but did not file a workers’ compensation claim.
- Tribunal conclusion:
  - The Tribunal is not persuaded that Applicant was unable to initiate the workers’ compensation process within the requisite time period or that his medical condition provides an exceptional circumstance to excuse a more than three-year delay.
  - Accordingly, the late filing is not excused.

### Duty of care and disclosure of internal law
- Duty of care obligations:
  - The Fund has a duty of care to protect the health and safety of its employees and to provide workers’ compensation benefits for accidental injury or illness arising out of Fund employment.
  - The Fund’s workers’ compensation policy provides access to a system for no-fault resolution of disputes; “[o]rdinarily, the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy will supply the exclusive remedy in cases of injury or illness arising out of Fund employment.” (Mr. “LL”, para. 238.)
- Requirements for effective access:
  - The Fund must provide all employees, including STX employees, with effective access to the relevant documents detailing benefits and avenues of recourse for work-related illness and injury.
  - Employees must have access to the internal law that governed during the relevant period.
  - Fund managers and HRD officials must be adequately informed of the rights of employees, including STX employees, to seek compensation and the procedures for doing so.
- Shortcomings identified in this case:
  - The Fund relied upon and used the 2009 STX Handbook when the 2016 version was already in place at the time of the injury; Applicant had access only to the 2009 version.
  - As an STX, Applicant did not have access to the text of the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy GAO No. 20, to which the STX Handbook refers and which is the legal basis for his eligibility.
  - Applicant became ill within days of his overseas assignment, was hospitalized, and had sustained severe mosquito bites in a Zika virus zone. Applicant’s manager was concerned but asserted he was not aware the illness might be compensable. HRD was aware of Applicant’s illness but did not inform Applicant regarding the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program.

*Source: j2023-4 (IMF Administrative Tribunal judgment excerpt).*

### 87. Applicant has asserted that it was “automatic” that a claim would be made on his behalf.

### 87. Applicant has asserted that it was “automatic” that a claim would be made on his behalf.

### Duty of care: workers’ compensation awareness and employer obligations
- The Tribunal determined it was not “automatic” that a workers’ compensation claim would be made on Applicant’s behalf, given the requirements in the Fund’s internal law for claiming workers’ compensation benefits.
- Nonetheless, Fund managers had a duty of care to advise Applicant of the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program in the circumstances of his case.
  - HRD officials knew of Applicant’s serious illness through exchanges with his family representatives.
  - Applicant was an STX, rather than a regular Fund staff member, and, as an STX, did not have direct access to the text of the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy GAO No. 20, which was incorporated by reference in his contract.
  - The 2016 STX Handbook designates the “hiring department,” i.e., Fund managers, as the point of contact for the STX.
  - Record indicates Fund managers had not been given guidance on how to respond if an STX incurred an illness or injury potentially compensable under the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Fund’s failure, when Applicant fell ill in April 2017, to bring to the attention of Applicant or his representatives the possible relevance of the workers’ compensation program constituted a failure to meet its duty of care.

### Right to recourse: obligation to inform about review avenues
- The Fund has responsibilities to provide an effective system for resolution of employment disputes; “Exercising the right to review of administrative acts through the channels established for the resolution of staff disputes, up to and including the review provided by this Tribunal, is a fundamental right of international civil servants.”
- It is essential that when an employee raises a complaint arising from Fund employment and that complaint is denied, the organization inform the employee of all available avenues of recourse.
- Two instances in which the Fund failed to advise Applicant that further recourse was open:
  - The HR Division Chief’s letter of June 18, 2020, rejecting Applicant’s May 1, 2020, “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage,” included: “We understand that this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but we wish you continued recovery.” The letter appeared to treat the matter as closed.
  - When Applicant followed up on August 5, 2020, via local counsel “to pursue civil damages against IMF,” the Fund did not respond.
- The HR Division Chief characterized Applicant’s May 1, 2020 submission as raising a dispute under his letter of appointment rather than asserting a claim for work-related injury or illness. After counsel submitted a Request for Administrative Review to the HRD Director, Applicant was directed to the Fund’s arbitration process.
- The Tribunal held that the Fund did not meet its responsibilities to inform Applicant of available avenues of recourse after he raised a claim for compensation related to a service-incurred injury or illness; this was a failure to meet its duty of care.
- The Tribunal is without jurisdiction to consider Applicant’s allegations challenging aspects of the arbitration proceeding that preceded his Application to the Tribunal.

### Tribunal conclusions on timeliness and duty of care
- Applicant did not make a claim for workers’ compensation within the period specified in the STX Handbook or as required by the Fund’s practice under GAO No. 20.
- Applicant has not shown that exceptional circumstances excuse that failure; therefore, Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is denied as untimely.
- The Fund should have:
  - Made GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, governing compensation for work-related injury and illness, accessible to Applicant.
  - Taken measures to inform managers and HRD officials of eligibility of Fund employees, including STX such as Applicant, for workers’ compensation benefits in the event of illness or injury arising in the course of Fund employment.
  - Advised Applicant of avenues for recourse when he raised a claim and it was denied.
- These failures do not excuse Applicant’s delay of more than three years in seeking compensation, but they entitle him to compensation on the ground that the decision to deny his claim was marked by the Fund’s failure to meet its duty of care.

### Remedies: legal basis and categories
- The Tribunal’s remedial authority for challenges to individual decisions is found in Article XIV, Section 1, of the Statute, which provides that if an application is well-founded it “shall prescribe the rescission of such decision and all other measures, whether involving the payment of money or otherwise, required to correct the effects of that decision.”
- Established categories of remedial powers:
  - (i) rescission of the contested decision with measures to correct effects by monetary compensation or specific performance;
  - (ii) compensation for intangible injury resulting from procedural failure in taking a sustainable decision; and
  - (iii) compensation to correct effects of intangible injury consequent to the Fund’s failure to act in accordance with its legal obligations where there may be no decision to rescind.

### Remedy for intangible injury: findings and award
- The Tribunal sustained Respondent’s denial of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim as untimely but found the impugned decision was marked by a failure of the Fund to meet its duty of care.
- Two elements of intangible injury:
  - Failure, in April 2017 when Applicant fell seriously ill with GBS days after return from an overseas assignment in a Zika virus zone, to draw attention to the possible relevance of the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy.
  - In May 2020, denial of Applicant’s “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage” without information on further recourse, followed by silence to a follow-up query.
- For the intangible injury consequent to the Fund’s failure to meet its duty of care, the Tribunal awards compensation in the sum of $60,000.

### Legal fees and costs: requests, principles, and award
- Article XIV, Section 4, of the Statute authorizes awards of reasonable costs, including counsel fees, taking into account nature and complexity of the case, nature and quality of work performed, and amount of fees in relation to prevailing rates.
- Applicant submitted documentation in support of his fee request; Applicant seeks legal fees and costs in the amount of $97,420.28.
- Principles applied in assessing “reasonable costs”:
  - Principle of proportionality: where applicant prevails only in part, fees are assessed proportionally, weighing “relative centrality and complexity” of claims and the role of the record assembled by counsel.
  - Necessity and relevance of legal work; avoidance of unnecessary duplication.
  - Arbitration fees are normally separate; Applicant’s Request for Arbitration was attached to the Application and much of the Application’s text overlaps the arbitration request, but the Tribunal considered overlap in assessing costs.
- Applying these principles, the Tribunal awards Applicant 60 percent of the total fees and costs incurred, in the sum of $58,452.17.

### Decision (outcomes ordered by the Tribunal)
- “VV” has not prevailed on his principal claim that he made a timely request for workers’ compensation and that he should be awarded workers’ compensation benefits.
- Respondent’s decision to deny “VV”’s request for compensation in relation to an alleged work-related injury or illness was marked by a failure of the Fund to meet its duty of care.
- “VV” is awarded compensation in the sum of $60,000 for the intangible injury consequent to that failure.
- The Fund shall pay to “VV” 60 percent of the legal fees and costs he incurred in these proceedings, in the sum of $58,452.17.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-4.pdf_