'HUGE Legal Win': Florida Appeals Court Just Dealt A Devastating Blow To Forced Masking

A Florida appellate court delivered a devastating blow to government-induced forced public masking in the state on Friday with a narrow 2-1 decision that finally took into account citizen privacy rights that have often been ignored throughout the pandemic.

In overturning and sending back for reconsideration the decision of a circuit judge in favor of Alachua County's mask requirement, the 1st District Court of Appeal panel cited the state Supreme Court's interpretation of privacy rights "so broad as to include the complete freedom of a person to control his own body," Fox13 reported.

A panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, said Alachua County Circuit Judge Donna Keim did not properly consider the privacy rights of plaintiff Justin Green before she rejected a request for a temporary injunction against the mask requirement.

"The trial court simply looked at the right asserted by Green too narrowly, relying on the wrong privacy jurisprudence," said the 13-page majority opinion, written by Judge Adam Tanenbaum and joined by Judge Robert Long. "The right to be let alone by government does exist in Florida, as part of a right of privacy that our (Florida) Supreme Court has declared to be fundamental. … (The Supreme Court) has construed this fundamental right to be so broad as to include the complete freedom of a person to control his own body. Under this construction, a person reasonably can expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will. Florida’s constitutional right to privacy, then, necessarily is implicated by the nature of the county’s mask mandate."

The majority stopped short of declaring the Alachua County requirement unconstitutional but sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

Judge Joseph Lewis' 15-page dissent predictably appealed to forced masking as a "temporary and de minimus interference with a person’s public interactions in response to a global pandemic," but Tanenbaum and Long - both appointed to the bench by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis - carried the day.

While Lewis also tried to argue that the case was moot because DeSantis' executive order in May preventing local governments from requiring masks, the majority pointed out that counties could always reissue orders at a future time.

"Because of the nature of the various emergency orders that we have seen and the county’s continued commitment to public mask wearing, we are not convinced that this is the last that we will see of this issue," Tanenbaum wrote in a footnote.

Later in the opinion, however, the majority appeared to acknowledge that the circuit judge might not have a case to reconsider.

"We remand for a new proceeding that presumes the unconstitutionality of the mask mandate, in the event there still is some mask mandate that remains to be litigated," the opinion said.

... Green, who operates a nursery business, took the lawsuit to the Tallahassee-based appeals court after Keim refused to grant a temporary injunction in May 2020.

Interestingly, Fox13 reported that the decision from Tanenbaum and Long "relied heavily on a 2017 Florida Supreme Court decision blocking a law that sought to require women to wait 24 hours before having abortions."

Hey, my body my choice, right? Except, in this case, nobody is actually getting killed because masks have never done squat to stop or even slightly curb the spread of COVID-19 or any other respiratory virus.

Florida state representative Anthony Sabatini called the decision a "huge legal win" for liberty.

This is how it's done, folks. The people trying to force you to cover your face with a disgusting bacteria collector in the name of 'public health' - with absolutely zero science or data on their side to support their claims - have always been the aggressors here, and using the courts everywhere possible to push back is definitely the right move.

It's hard to predict what will eventually happen with this case, but the decision does underscore just how important judicial appointments are, even at the state level. DeSantis appointed both of these judges, and he also has appointed three of the seven judges on Florida's Supreme Court.

HIPAA *NEVER* mattered.

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)).

That being said, the reasoning of the opinion here would apply just as well to vaccine mandates. Keep in mind that much of this opinion is based on an interpretation of the Florida Constitution, which has been interpreted as being stricter in regards to personal autonomy than the Federal Constitution. However, there is much in this opinion that would be persuasive.

I'm sorry. Remember these liability "rules" are forced at the State level. Some states are not sanctuary states from covid liabilities.

The company will be held liable if people get covid and they didn't take the "science" based precautions which could have as high as a 60% chance of death within a few years. likely based on your genes (covid and vaccine create spike proteins)

This bill that was signed in Missouri SB-51 generally made Missouri a sanctuary state from Covid liability claims. This allows for business to run their business without a threat of being liable.

If you want work you must take the ultimate oath to faith in "science" Or move to a sanctuary state.
https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=54105525

here is what some of the states signed up for under the emergency powers act (July 2020.. you have to check your state for updates)
https://restaurant.org/downloads/pdfs/business/covid-19-states-liability-protection-statutes.pdf

I can't even talk about this with my wife. she calls it political and doesn't want to hear it. She agrees there is a major problem but wants to focus on her day to day life. She actually has the best way to deal with it. though I wish I could do the same. I can't take this lightly as much as I want to. My personal estimates of death from taking these vaccine is about 1/3 dead within 5 to 8 years(cancer and heart problems will be the two big ones.) I'm still asking virologist on some technical issues but if i'm right that many dead isn't the worst of it.

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.