I. Introduction

The Health Emergency Allowance, commonly called HEA, is one of the most important labor-related benefits created in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency in the Philippines. It was designed to recognize the extraordinary risk, burden, and service rendered by health care workers and non-health care workers who served in health facilities during the pandemic.

A recurring legal issue is whether former hospital employees may still claim HEA after resignation, separation, end of contract, retirement, dismissal, or closure of employment relationship. The short answer is: yes, a former hospital employee may claim HEA if the legal and administrative requirements were met during the period of service covered by the allowance. Separation from employment does not automatically extinguish an accrued statutory or government-authorized monetary benefit.

This article discusses the legal basis, coverage, entitlement, procedure, documentary requirements, common defenses, remedies, and practical considerations for former hospital employees claiming the Health Emergency Allowance in the Philippines.

II. Nature and Purpose of the Health Emergency Allowance

The Health Emergency Allowance is a monetary benefit granted to eligible health care workers and non-health care workers who rendered services during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

It replaced or consolidated earlier COVID-19-related benefits such as special risk allowances, active hazard duty pay, meal, accommodation, and transportation support, and other emergency-related compensation schemes under previous issuances.

The HEA is not simply a discretionary bonus from the hospital. It is rooted in law and government policy. Its purpose is to compensate workers who were exposed to varying degrees of COVID-19 risk while serving in health facilities during the pandemic.

Because of this, the claim is generally treated as a statutory or legally mandated benefit, subject to the availability of appropriated public funds and compliance with Department of Health requirements.

III. Legal Basis

The central legal basis of HEA is the Philippine law that granted COVID-19-related benefits and allowances to health care workers and non-health care workers during the public health emergency.

The relevant legal framework generally includes:

Republic Act No. 11712, also known as the Public Health Emergency Benefits and Allowances for Health Care Workers Act;
Implementing rules and regulations issued by the Department of Health;
Department of Health administrative orders, circulars, advisories, and memoranda governing HEA claims;
Budgetary releases and guidelines from the Department of Budget and Management;
Applicable labor law principles on accrued monetary benefits;
Civil law principles on obligations, unjust withholding, and payment of amounts due;
Administrative law principles requiring government agencies and accredited institutions to implement benefits in accordance with law.

Republic Act No. 11712 institutionalized the grant of benefits to eligible workers during a public health emergency. It recognizes that both medical and non-medical personnel may be exposed to health risks in the performance of duties in health facilities.

IV. Who May Be Covered

HEA coverage is not limited to doctors and nurses. In the Philippine context, covered personnel may include both health care workers and non-health care workers assigned in health facilities.

Depending on the applicable guidelines and the worker’s actual assignment, covered personnel may include:

Physicians;
Nurses;
Nursing aides and attendants;
Medical technologists;
Radiologic technologists;
Pharmacists;
Respiratory therapists;
Midwives;
Physical therapists;
Emergency medical personnel;
Hospital administrative staff;
Billing and cashiering personnel;
Medical records staff;
Encoders;
Security guards;
Janitors and sanitation workers;
Dietary and kitchen personnel;
Ambulance drivers;
Maintenance personnel;
Utility workers;
Contract-of-service and job-order personnel, where covered by guidelines;
Personnel assigned through outsourced service providers, where recognized under applicable rules.

The key question is usually not the job title alone, but whether the person rendered service in a covered health facility during the covered period and was exposed to the applicable level of risk.

V. Former Employees: Are They Still Entitled?

A former hospital employee may still be entitled to HEA if the entitlement accrued while the person was still rendering covered service.

The fact that the employee is no longer connected with the hospital does not, by itself, defeat the claim. The legal right arises from the period of actual service and exposure, not from the employee’s current employment status.

For example, a nurse who worked in a COVID-19 ward from January to June 2022 and resigned in August 2022 may still have a claim for HEA covering January to June 2022, assuming all other requirements are met.

Likewise, an administrative worker who served in a hospital during covered months may still claim if the worker was included in the eligible risk category under the governing guidelines.

The important principle is this: once the service was rendered and the statutory conditions were satisfied, the benefit may become an accrued monetary claim.

VI. Accrued Benefits and Separation from Employment

Philippine labor law recognizes that earned or accrued monetary benefits do not disappear merely because the employment relationship has ended.

This principle applies to wages, salary differentials, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, final pay, and other amounts that became due because of work already performed. By analogy, if HEA entitlement accrued during employment, subsequent resignation or separation should not automatically cancel the worker’s right.

A hospital cannot validly deny an otherwise qualified claim solely on the ground that the claimant is already a former employee. The more relevant questions are:

Was the claimant employed, engaged, assigned, or deployed during the covered period?
Was the facility covered?
Was the worker included in the submitted list or eligible masterlist?
What risk category applied?
Was the claim already processed, pending, returned, deficient, or omitted?
Were funds released to the hospital for that claimant or category of claim?
Did the hospital receive HEA funds but fail to distribute them?
Was the employee excluded for a valid reason under DOH guidelines?

If the answer supports entitlement, the former employee may have a valid claim.

VII. Covered Facilities

HEA claims typically involve workers assigned in health facilities such as:

Government hospitals;
Private hospitals;
Local government unit hospitals;
Specialty hospitals;
Infirmaries;
Diagnostic facilities;
Quarantine or isolation facilities;
Treatment and rehabilitation centers;
Rural health units and health centers;
Other facilities recognized under DOH guidelines.

For private hospital employees, the claim often passes through institutional processing. The hospital or facility submits required documents to the DOH or appropriate health authority. Once funds are released, the hospital is expected to distribute the allowance to qualified personnel.

VIII. Risk Classification

HEA is generally based on risk exposure. Workers were classified according to risk levels, commonly including:

Low risk;
Medium risk;
High risk.

The amount of HEA depends on the risk classification and the number of months or periods of qualified service.

Risk classification is usually determined by the worker’s assignment, duties, location, degree of exposure, and applicable DOH rules. A worker directly assigned to COVID-19 wards, emergency rooms, intensive care units, swabbing areas, triage, or isolation facilities may be classified differently from someone in administrative areas with lower direct exposure.

However, non-frontline workers are not automatically excluded. Many hospital operations required physical presence and exposure to patients, staff, contaminated materials, or high-risk environments.

IX. Common Legal Issues in Claims by Former Employees

1. The employee resigned before release of funds

This is one of the most common problems.

A hospital may say that only current employees are included in distribution. This position is legally questionable if the former employee was qualified during the covered period.

The timing of fund release should not defeat entitlement. Government processing delays are not the fault of the employee. If the worker served during the covered months and was included or should have been included, resignation before payment should not bar the claim.

2. The employee was not included in the hospital’s submission

Some workers discover that their names were omitted from the hospital’s HEA list.

This may occur due to clerical error, administrative negligence, incomplete records, payroll issues, employment status confusion, or misinterpretation of eligibility rules.

Omission is not necessarily fatal. The former employee may request correction, endorsement, certification, or late inclusion, subject to applicable DOH procedures and deadlines.

3. The hospital received funds but did not release payment

If the hospital received HEA funds corresponding to the employee or to a batch that includes the employee, failure to release payment may raise serious legal and administrative concerns.

The worker may demand accounting, proof of fund release, and payment. Depending on the circumstances, possible remedies may include filing complaints with the DOH, Department of Labor and Employment, National Labor Relations Commission, Civil Service Commission for public employees, Commission on Audit for public funds, or the Office of the Ombudsman if public officers are involved.

4. The worker was outsourced

Security guards, janitors, housekeeping staff, dietary workers, and other outsourced personnel often face difficulty claiming HEA because they are not directly employed by the hospital.

Entitlement depends on the governing guidelines and whether outsourced personnel were recognized as covered non-health care workers assigned in the facility. If covered, the claim may involve coordination among the hospital, manpower agency, and DOH.

The hospital may possess the deployment records and risk classification, while the agency may possess employment and payroll records.

5. The employee was under job order or contract of service

Job-order and contract-of-service personnel may be covered depending on the applicable issuances and their actual assignment. Their lack of regular employment status does not automatically exclude them if the law or implementing rules include them.

The issue is usually documentary: proof of engagement, assignment, attendance, and inclusion in the facility’s submission.

6. The employee was dismissed or separated for cause

Dismissal does not automatically forfeit accrued statutory benefits unless there is a lawful basis for forfeiture. If the worker rendered covered service before dismissal, the HEA claim may still survive.

The hospital cannot use separation for cause as a blanket reason to withhold HEA if the benefit already accrued and no rule authorizes forfeiture.

7. The employee signed a quitclaim

A quitclaim may complicate the claim but does not always bar recovery.

Philippine labor law treats quitclaims with caution. A quitclaim may be invalid or ineffective if it is shown to be unconscionable, involuntary, misleading, or contrary to law.

If HEA was not yet known, computed, released, or included in final pay at the time of signing, a former employee may argue that the quitclaim did not validly waive the HEA claim. Waivers of statutory benefits are generally disfavored when they defeat labor protection policy.

X. Requirements for a Former Employee’s Claim

A former hospital employee should gather documents proving both employment and actual covered service.

Useful documents include:

Certificate of employment;
Employment contract;
Appointment paper;
Job order or contract of service;
Payslips;
Payroll records;
Daily time records;
Bundy cards;
Biometric attendance records;
Duty schedules;
Nurse station assignment records;
Ward or unit assignment records;
Deployment orders;
Memoranda assigning the employee to COVID-19 areas;
Identification card;
Clearance documents;
Resignation letter and acceptance;
Final pay computation;
Proof of previous HEA payments, if any;
Text messages, emails, or internal announcements about HEA;
Hospital advisories or lists of eligible employees;
DOH-related forms or certifications;
Affidavits from supervisors or co-workers;
Proof that similarly situated employees received HEA.

The strongest claims are supported by records showing:

The claimant worked in the hospital during the covered period;
The claimant’s actual assignment;
The risk category applicable to the claimant;
The number of months or days of service;
The hospital processed or should have processed the claim;
Funds were released or remain pending.

XI. Step-by-Step Process for Former Employees

Step 1: Request information from the hospital

The former employee should write to the hospital’s Human Resources Department, Finance Office, Chief Nurse, Medical Director, or Administrator.

The request should ask for:

Confirmation whether the employee was included in the HEA submission;
The covered months submitted;
The risk classification used;
The amount claimed;
The status of the claim;
Whether funds were already released by DOH;
If excluded, the reason for exclusion;
The procedure for correction or appeal.

The request should be in writing and received by the hospital. Email may be used, but a stamped receiving copy is preferable when possible.

Step 2: Request certification or correction

If the former employee was omitted, the employee may request that the hospital issue a certification of service and submit a correction or supplemental claim.

The certification should state:

Name of worker;
Position;
Employment or engagement period;
Unit or department assigned;
Actual duty period;
Risk classification, if determinable;
Confirmation that the worker physically reported for duty or rendered covered service.

Step 3: Coordinate with DOH or the relevant health office

Depending on the facility and region, claims may be processed through the DOH central office, DOH regional office, Center for Health Development, or other implementing office.

The claimant may inquire whether the facility submitted claims and whether the claimant’s name appears in the processed list.

Step 4: Send a formal demand

If the hospital received funds but failed to release payment, a formal demand letter may be sent.

The demand letter should be factual and supported by documents. It should request payment within a reasonable period and ask for a written explanation if payment is denied.

Step 5: File the appropriate complaint

The correct forum depends on the nature of employment and the respondent.

For private hospital employees, possible remedies may include:

DOH complaint or inquiry;
DOLE referral or assistance;
Single Entry Approach proceedings, where appropriate;
NLRC complaint if the claim is treated as a labor money claim against the employer;
Civil action in proper cases;
Administrative complaint if public funds were mishandled.

For government hospital employees, possible remedies may include:

Internal grievance machinery;
DOH or local government inquiry;
Civil Service Commission remedies;
Commission on Audit inquiry for public fund disbursement issues;
Office of the Ombudsman complaint for misconduct, neglect, or misuse of public funds, where facts support it.

For outsourced workers, possible respondents may include the manpower agency, hospital, or both, depending on who was legally responsible for submission, certification, receipt, and distribution.

XII. Is HEA Part of Wages?

HEA is not ordinary salary or wage in the usual sense. It is a special statutory or emergency allowance funded through government mechanisms.

However, once due and payable, it may be treated as a monetary claim. The worker’s right is based on law, not merely employer generosity.

This distinction matters because the hospital may argue that it cannot pay HEA unless funds are released by the government. That may be true where the hospital never received the funds and only acts as a conduit. But if the hospital already received funds allocated for eligible workers, it has a duty to distribute them properly.

XIII. Private Hospitals and Government Funding

Private hospital employees often ask: “Can I sue the hospital if DOH has not yet released the money?”

The answer depends on the facts.

If the hospital never received the HEA funds and has no independent legal obligation to advance the allowance from its own resources, the immediate remedy may be to follow up with the hospital and DOH regarding claim submission and fund release.

But if the delay or non-payment was caused by the hospital’s failure to submit, incorrect submission, unjust exclusion, refusal to certify, or withholding of released funds, the hospital may face liability or administrative accountability.

The hospital’s role is not purely passive. It generally has duties to identify eligible workers, prepare documents, submit claims, correct errors, and distribute funds received.

XIV. Prescription Period

A claim should be made as soon as possible.

Different prescription periods may apply depending on how the claim is framed:

As a labor money claim;
As a statutory benefit;
As a civil obligation;
As an administrative claim;
As a claim involving public funds;
As a grievance by a government employee.

Because prescription can be technical, former employees should not delay. Written demands, formal inquiries, and filed complaints help establish that the claim was timely pursued.

XV. Burden of Proof

The claimant must prove eligibility. However, the hospital usually controls many of the key records.

A former employee should prove at least:

Identity;
Employment or engagement;
Service during covered dates;
Assignment or exposure;
Non-payment or underpayment.

Once the worker presents credible proof, the hospital may be expected to explain exclusion, non-submission, or non-payment, especially if similarly situated workers were paid.

XVI. Underpayment and Wrong Risk Classification

Some former employees received HEA but believe they were underpaid.

Common reasons include:

Wrong risk category;
Incomplete months credited;
Exclusion of certain duty periods;
Incorrect employment dates;
Failure to count reassignment to higher-risk units;
Partial release of funds;
Deduction or offset not authorized by law.

A worker may question the computation and request:

Breakdown of covered months;
Risk category per month;
Rate applied;
Amount received from DOH;
Amount released to employee;
Explanation for deductions or exclusions.

Unauthorized deductions from HEA may be legally questionable, especially if the allowance was intended for direct payment to workers.

XVII. Quitclaims, Final Pay, and Clearance

Hospitals sometimes require employees to complete clearance before releasing final pay. The HEA may not yet be available at the time of clearance.

A former employee should distinguish final pay from HEA. Final pay usually includes salary, unused leave benefits, 13th month pay, tax refunds, and similar employment-related amounts. HEA may be processed separately because it depends on government validation and fund release.

If a former employee signed a clearance or quitclaim, the document must be examined carefully. A general waiver may not necessarily cover a later-released statutory HEA benefit, especially if the amount was unknown or not included in the computation.

XVIII. Death of the Worker

If an eligible worker died before receiving HEA, the claim may generally be pursued by lawful heirs or authorized representatives, subject to documentary requirements.

Documents may include:

Death certificate;
Proof of relationship;
Authorization from heirs;
Identification documents;
Employment or service records;
Claim forms required by the hospital or DOH.

This is especially important for families of health workers who served during the pandemic but passed away before benefits were released.

XIX. Evidence That Strengthens a Claim

A former employee’s claim is stronger when supported by:

Proof that current employees in the same unit received HEA;
Written admission that the claimant was included in the hospital list;
DOH or hospital acknowledgment of pending HEA;
Payroll or disbursement records showing released funds;
Assignment to COVID-19 ward, ER, ICU, swabbing area, triage, isolation, or high-risk unit;
Certification by immediate supervisor;
Duty schedules showing physical reporting;
Prior receipt of HEA for some months but not others;
Hospital memorandum identifying eligible personnel;
Group complaints by similarly affected former employees.

A claim is weaker when the worker cannot show actual service during the covered period, cannot prove assignment, or was working remotely in a role excluded by the applicable guidelines.

XX. Common Hospital Defenses

Hospitals may raise several defenses:

1. No funds were released

This may be valid if true. But the hospital should still disclose whether the claim was submitted and what its status is.

2. The employee was not eligible

The hospital must identify the basis for ineligibility, not merely assert it.

3. The employee was not included in the DOH-approved list

The employee may ask why and whether correction is possible.

4. The employee already signed a quitclaim

The validity and scope of the quitclaim may be challenged.

5. The employee was not directly involved in COVID-19 care

Direct patient care is not always the only basis for eligibility. Non-health care workers may also be covered depending on risk exposure and applicable rules.

6. The claim was filed late

The employee should verify whether the delay was caused by the hospital, DOH processing, lack of notice, or omission from submission.

7. The worker was employed by an agency, not the hospital

For outsourced workers, this may affect the proper party but does not automatically eliminate entitlement if the guidelines covered them.

XXI. Possible Causes of Action

Depending on the facts, a former employee may frame the claim as:

Non-payment of statutory benefit;
Money claim arising from employment;
Failure to release government-funded allowance;
Unjust exclusion from HEA submission;
Illegal withholding of funds;
Breach of obligation;
Administrative neglect;
Grave misconduct or misuse of public funds, in serious cases involving public officers;
Violation of labor standards or labor rights.

The forum and theory must be chosen carefully.

XXII. Forum Considerations

Private hospital employees

A private hospital employee may consider:

Internal hospital grievance or HR inquiry;
DOH inquiry or complaint;
DOLE assistance;
NLRC money claim, depending on the nature of the claim and respondent;
Civil action where appropriate.

Government hospital employees

A government hospital employee may consider:

Agency grievance mechanism;
Civil Service Commission;
DOH or local government channels;
Commission on Audit;
Office of the Ombudsman, where facts suggest misconduct.

Outsourced workers

An outsourced worker may need to proceed against or coordinate with:

The manpower agency;
The hospital;
DOH or regional health office;
DOLE, especially if employment relationship issues are involved.

XXIII. Practical Demand Letter Structure

A former employee’s demand or inquiry letter may include:

Full name;
Former position;
Department or unit;
Employment period;
Covered months claimed;
Brief statement of duties and exposure;
Request for confirmation of HEA status;
Request for payment or inclusion;
Request for written explanation if denied;
Attached supporting documents;
Contact details.

A concise demand is often more effective than an emotional or accusatory letter. The goal is to create a written record and force a clear answer.

XXIV. Sample Demand Letter

[Date]

The Hospital Administrator / Human Resources Department [Name of Hospital] [Address]

Subject: Request for Payment / Status of Health Emergency Allowance

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am a former employee of [Name of Hospital], having served as [position] under the [department/unit] from [start date] to [end date].

During the covered period of the Health Emergency Allowance, I rendered service at [unit/department/area], including the months of [state months]. Based on my assignment and actual service during the public health emergency, I respectfully request confirmation of my entitlement to the Health Emergency Allowance and the status of my claim.

Kindly provide information on the following:

Whether my name was included in the HEA submission;
The covered months submitted on my behalf;
The risk classification applied;
The amount claimed or approved;
Whether funds have already been released;
If I was excluded, the reason for exclusion and the procedure for correction or appeal.

If funds corresponding to my HEA have already been received by the hospital, I respectfully demand release of the amount due to me.

Attached are copies of documents supporting my employment and service during the covered period.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

[Name] [Contact Number] [Email Address]

XXV. Special Issues for Nurses and Frontliners

Nurses frequently have strong HEA claims because their duty schedules, ward assignments, and patient-facing roles are usually well documented.

Important evidence for nurses includes:

Nurse deployment records;
Ward assignment sheets;
COVID-19 unit schedules;
Charge nurse certification;
Patient care area assignment;
PPE issuance records;
Incident reports;
Previous hazard pay or risk allowance records.

A nurse who resigned before fund release should still ask whether their name was included in the hospital’s submission. If nurses in the same batch or unit were paid but the resigned nurse was not, that may indicate unjust exclusion or administrative error.

XXVI. Administrative and Finance Personnel

Administrative personnel may also qualify depending on risk exposure and applicable rules.

They should document:

Physical reporting during covered months;
Assignment inside the hospital premises;
Patient-facing duties, if any;
Handling of patient documents, billing, admissions, emergency room coordination, or records;
Exposure to hospital traffic or COVID-related processes;
Inclusion of similar employees in prior payments.

The claim may be harder if the worker performed purely remote work or was not physically exposed to facility risks.

XXVII. Security, Janitorial, and Utility Personnel

These workers often performed high-risk support roles. They may have handled entrances, patient flow, disinfection, waste, sanitation, and movement within contaminated areas.

Key documents include:

Agency deployment records;
Hospital post assignment;
Daily attendance logs;
Duty rosters;
Certification from hospital security, housekeeping, or facilities office;
Proof that the worker was assigned to hospital premises during covered months.

The fact that the worker was not directly hired by the hospital should not end the inquiry. The actual guidelines and submission process must be examined.

XXVIII. Can the Hospital Deduct Debts from HEA?

A hospital should be cautious in offsetting or deducting amounts from HEA. Since HEA is a special statutory benefit intended for workers, deductions not authorized by law or written agreement may be improper.

Examples of questionable deductions include:

Deducting alleged cash advances without clear authority;
Applying HEA to training bonds;
Withholding HEA due to unreturned uniforms or IDs;
Conditioning HEA release on signing broad waivers;
Deducting agency fees from outsourced workers without legal basis.

A former employee should demand a written computation if the amount released is lower than expected.

XXIX. Taxability

The tax treatment of HEA depends on applicable tax rules, issuances, and classification of the payment. Some COVID-19-related benefits were treated differently depending on statutory language and implementing rules.

Former employees should review the payslip, withholding certificate, or payment voucher. If tax was withheld, they may request the legal basis and documentation.

XXX. Group Claims

Former employees may file coordinated demands when many workers from the same hospital were omitted or unpaid.

Group action is useful because:

It shows the issue is systemic;
It pressures the hospital to review records;
It allows workers to compare payments and risk classifications;
It reduces documentary burden;
It may reveal that funds were released for some but not all.

However, each worker’s entitlement may still depend on individual service dates, assignment, and risk classification.

XXXI. What Former Employees Should Avoid

Former employees should avoid:

Relying only on verbal follow-ups;
Posting accusations online without documents;
Signing quitclaims for unclear or incomplete payments;
Accepting partial payment without noting reservation, if disputing the balance;
Waiting indefinitely;
Filing in the wrong forum without first gathering records;
Making unsupported allegations of corruption;
Losing copies of duty schedules, payslips, and employment records.

A calm, documented approach is usually more effective.

XXXII. Legal Principles Supporting Former Employees

Several legal principles support HEA claims by former employees:

1. Protection to labor

The Constitution and labor laws favor protection of workers, especially those who served in hazardous conditions.

2. Statutory benefits cannot be lightly waived

A waiver of statutory benefits is generally viewed with caution.

3. Accrued benefits survive separation

Benefits earned during employment are not extinguished by resignation or separation.

4. Equal treatment

Similarly situated workers should not be arbitrarily treated differently.

5. Accountability in public funds

If public funds were released for worker benefits, they must be distributed according to law and accounting rules.

6. Substantial justice

Technical omissions should not defeat valid claims when the worker actually rendered covered service and the omission was not the worker’s fault.

XXXIII. Limitations and Realistic Challenges

Although former employees may have valid claims, practical obstacles exist.

These include:

Delays in government fund release;
Incomplete hospital submissions;
Expired submission windows;
Missing employment records;
Confusion over risk classification;
Disputes between hospital and DOH;
Outsourcing arrangements;
Lack of transparency;
Administrative backlog;
Difficulty contacting former employees;
Changes in hospital management;
Closure or restructuring of facilities.

A valid claim may still take time and persistence to resolve.

XXXIV. Best Legal Position

The strongest legal position for a former hospital employee is:

“I rendered covered service during the public health emergency while employed or assigned at the hospital. My entitlement to HEA accrued during that period. My subsequent resignation or separation does not extinguish my right to receive the allowance. If I was omitted from the submission or if funds were received but not released, I respectfully request correction, accounting, and payment.”

This position is reasonable, legally grounded, and consistent with labor protection principles.

XXXV. Conclusion

Former hospital employees in the Philippines may still claim the Health Emergency Allowance if they rendered covered service during the applicable period and satisfy the requirements under law and DOH guidelines. Resignation, end of contract, retirement, or separation does not automatically defeat the claim.

The critical issues are proof of service, eligibility, risk classification, inclusion in the hospital’s submission, fund release, and proper distribution. Former employees should act promptly, request written confirmation, gather documents, and pursue the appropriate administrative or legal remedy if payment is unjustly denied.

The HEA exists because hospital workers carried extraordinary risks during a national health crisis. That recognition should not depend merely on whether the worker remains employed by the hospital at the time funds are finally released.