Here's
a tweet showing the actual rule.
.
I guess it depends if you feel that Eakins' cross check is what injured Pavelski or not.
There's no reference to "directly" or "indirectly" in the rule so in my mind, it becomes a question of how long after the actual infraction can it still be responsible for subsequent injuries. This one happened immediately as part of the same sequence but what if Eakins' cross-checks him and he hits the ice but isn't injured in the same way. But then Stastny who held back a bit in this timeline falls on the downed Pavelski five seconds later and injures him in the same way causing him to leave the game?
Does Eakins' get the same five and a game? Unlikely and I still think this penalty was as much a result of refs reacting to an (admittedly) serious injury after the fact (no arm up when it happened initially) and also, as I said in an earlier comment, taking into account that (in their minds anyhow) a five minute major is unlikely to swing a 3-0 game with ten minutes left.