Lynn Nettleton Hughes
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Posted on 06/13/2021 2:56:08 AM PDT by Libloather
A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit from more than 100 hospital employees who sued Houston Methodist over its policy requiring all staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The workers alleged in their lawsuit that the hospital was "forcing its employees to be human 'guinea pigs' as a condition for continued employment." They also accused the hospital of violating the Nuremberg Code of 1947, likening the vaccine mandate to Nazi medical experimentation on concentration camp prisoners.
US District Judge Lynn Hughes was not sympathetic to either argument, writing in his order of dismissal Saturday evening that none of the employees were forced or coerced to take the vaccine. He also noted that the hospital cannot violate the Nuremberg Code because it is a private employer, not a government.
"Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible," Hughes wrote. "Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death."
He added that the workers were free to accept or reject a vaccine and that they would "simply need to work elsewhere" if they chose the latter.
"If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration," Hughes wrote. "That is all part of the bargain."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Appeal and reverse. It’s unconstitutional.
Time to go after those companies that force this on their employees.
This needs to go to the USSC. We shall see. I’m sympathetic to the argument of changing terms of employment. (I wonder if they would be compelled to take the flux vax.) I am also sympathetic to the employer concerns over potential COVID outbreak (but not nearly as much).
This judge is a moron. No way any drug should be forced on you that has well over 99% recovery rates.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Forget the Nuremberg angle.
How is it not a hipaa violation to force employees to disclose medical information?
It’s my understanding that HIPAA applies to patient and provider only. Not the world writ large.
Hopefully someone more versed in this will post to you.
He needs to be impeached. This demonstrates a fundamental inability to recognize the rights of a free individual.
I’m beginning to believe that it is perhaps an outdated belief in this country, and that if there is to be a return to the freedoms we used to take for granted, it will not be a peaceful endeavor. If you understand what I am saying.
US District Judge Lynn Hughes was not sympathetic to either argument, writing in his order of dismissal Saturday evening that none of the employees were forced or coerced to take the vaccine. He also noted that the hospital cannot violate the Nuremberg Code because it is a private employer, not a government.
—
This judge is a moron. By his logic, a private employer could mandate anything they wish. They can force you to take experimental vaccines as a requirement of employment. Perhaps the employer would dictate what you eat, where you live, who you associate with, how you spend your free time.
What if the terms of employment includes a “casting couch”. Just go “work elsewhere”? /s
A lot of people are coming to that conclusion. Not enough. Too many phony libertarians think that as long as the infringement of rights doesn’t come directly from the government it’s all good.
Totalitarians will never let you opt out of their control. See what they did to Parler. And now they have seized control of elections. The judiciary is irretrievably corrupt. Every federal bureaucracy is now weaponized to defend a one party state.
I’m not saying the employer’s vaccination requirement is a good idea, but as an employer myself I find it delightful that a federal judge thinks the federal government should get the hell out of the employer-employee relationship entirely.
One can only hope that this same federal judge would find all federal labor laws blatantly unconstitutional, too.
HIPAA is irrelevant here.
HIPAA doesn’t really do much at all.
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)).
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, HIPAA isn’t the savior that people think that it is here. We need to push for State restrictions on “vaccine passports” and ignore other mandates.
How would the judge feel if he were not allowed to perform his job, without submitting to an experimental injection for a virus that over 99 percent of people survive?
Having the right to use government coercion to force your will on your employer doesn’t make you “free.” In fact, it’s a total perversion of freedom and completely distorts the fundamental idea of what freedom is.
Frankly, I find the judge's ruling — and especially his reasons for issuing it — refreshing.
Childish wording for a lawsuit and bad analogy really. They should have just brought up the fact that it's EUA and also show VAERS data. They could have also shown Pfizer and Moderna's own trial protocols that state that Phase 1 of the trial was/is for a 24 month period and that the protocols were written a year ago. Phases 2/3 were to be another 24 months. COVID itself has only been known to be in the USA for just over a year.
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.