Posted on 05/30/2021 5:36:00 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Good points.
Also, it’s still under workmen’s comp if someone got the shot under employer mandate, & had a bad reaction.
And if there was already work-from-home half day and work in factory with mask the other half, then there’s the accommodation already; no need to mandate masks or shots.
Or in your case, stay with work from home.
castlebrew wrote:
“This treatment is under an Experimental Use Authorization (EUA).
You cannot be forced to take it. You cannot be discriminated against for having taken it, or not.”
Gas_dr, is this still the case, that anything under an EUA can’t be mandated?
Good on the ones that made their stand!
Way to go, excellent move !!
What’s puzzling is the total lack of “… or contracted & recovered”.
Inoculation is - or should be - the goal, not just a particular artificial form of inoculation.
How does the FDA emergency use authorization affect COVID-19 vaccine mandates?
It is unclear whether COVID-19 vaccination could be legally mandated while the FDA’s EUA is in place. Current mandates apply to vaccines that have been fully approved by the FDA. By contrast, COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized under the FDA’s temporary emergency use authority. The EUA statute provides that individuals must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” Some commentators have interpreted this provision to mean that individuals cannot be required to receive a vaccine that is subject to an EUA. Others have questioned whether the reference to “consequences” of refusing a vaccine subject to an EUA includes not only potential health consequences but also other adverse outcomes such as loss of employment. The legislative history does not contain any references to mandates for vaccines under EUA. The EUA law was created after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and to date, courts have not interpreted this provision.
Congratulations. Now you can switch hands twice and never miss a beat
The government cannot mandate it as it is EUA. For example the military cannot be compelled until it is FDA approved
This is entirely different from the private sector. I could mandate that all my employees wear pink tutus and purple shoes on every third Thursday in leap years. It would be stupid but in a private business in an at will state the employers will is dispositive.
So to answer your question. The government can’t require it. A private business can.
Why the emphasis on “vaccinate”, not “inoculate”?
As you point out, employers can mandate anything...but
It’s not proven in the courts whether enforceable.
Problem 1. “Covered Entity.”
A Covered Entity is one of the following: A Health Care Provider, OR, A Health Plan, OR A Health Care Clearinghouse.
If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules. See definitions of “business associate” and “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103.
Problem 2. “No-private right of action.”
HIPAA doesn’t afford ANYONE a private right of action. You, as an individual, cannot bring a “HIPAA Claim” against ANYONE, INCLUDING a “covered-entity.” This has been litigated over and over and over again, with the same result.
Example:
“Significantly, however, there is no “private right of action to enforce HIPAA” when an individual believes that a disclosure was wrongfully made. Because the statute does not provide a private right of action, and “does not provide a remedy in court for those persons who believe their [HIPAA] rights have been violated,” Plaintiff is unable to state a cognizable claim for a HIPAA violation. Consequently, his claims for HIPAA violations are DISMISSED.” Emmerick v. Ridgecrest Reg’l Hosp., No. 1:17-cv-01160- DAD - JLT, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21115, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018).
“HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of medical records without a patient’s consent. But the statute does not expressly create a private cause of action for individuals to enforce this prohibition. Instead, HIPAA provides for penalties to be imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Nor does the statute imply a private cause of action. By delegating enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute clearly reflects that Congress did not intend for HIPAA to create a private Accordingly, because HIPAA confers no private cause of action, express or implied, we must dismiss Meadows’ claims.” Meadows v. United Servs., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020).
“Likewise, every circuit to have considered the issue has also held that no private right of action exists under HIPAA. See Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020); Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2019); Stewart v. Parkview Hosp., 940 F.3d 1013, 1015 (7th Cir. 2019); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2009); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-71 (5th Cir. 2006). HIPAA generally prohibits the disclosure of medical records without a patient’s consent. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-1 to 1320d-7. While it provides civil penalties for improper disclosures of medical information, it does not expressly create a private cause of action to enforce the prohibition on disclosure. Instead, it limits enforcement of the statute to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5. For that reason, no private right of action can be implied. “By delegating enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute clearly reflects that Congress did not intend for HIPAA to create a private remedy.” Meadows, 963 F.3d at 244; see Alexander, 532 U.S. at 290 (”The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.”). Accordingly, Laster cannot state a claim to relief under HIPAA.” Laster v. Careconnect Health Inc., No. 20-14726, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11481, at *5 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2021)
Problem 3. “Public Health Exceptions to HIPAA.”
Generally, disclosure of protected health information without the authorization of the individual is permitted for purposes including but not limited to: disclosures required by law (45 CFR § 164.512(a)) or
for “public health activities and purposes.” This includes disclosure to “a public health authority that is authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including but not limited to, the reporting of disease, injury, vital events…, and the conduct of public health surveillance,… investigations, and… interventions.” (45 CFR § 164.512(b)(i)).
People who aren’t lawyers, shouldn’t pretend to be lawyers on message boards.
Vaccine mandates, Vaccine passports and the rest of the tyrannical regulations that are being pushed are un-American and should be opposed by any and all means possible. They should be resisted, even to the point of civil disobedience.
However, lying to people and giving them false hope as to what legal options exist does no one any good.
Much better reading of the law than the OP.
Indeed.
There’s also the requirement that people be informed “of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks”.
To my knowledge, nobody was informed of alternatives to the shots.
Didn’t require vaccination for influenza in all the prior years, outside of medical employees.
Government-corporate partnership known as Facism.
Sure it is
There have been numerous at will last suits in at will states with little success
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.