Menu Close

Category: Daily News

Feds Say “Most Truckers” Can Avoid OSHA Vaccination Mandate

Biden’s vaccine or testing mandate for business with 100 or more employees went info effect on Friday, after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published the requirements in the Federal Register. Businesses have until Jan. 4 to ensure their employees have received the shots required for full vaccination. After that date, workers who are unvaccinated must submit a weekly negative Covid test to enter the workplace. Unvaccinated workers must wear masks indoors at their workplaces starting Dec. 5.

The American Trucking Associations, which pushed back against the mandates to White House officials at the Office of Management and Budget last month, had warned many drivers would quit rather than follow the rules, further disrupting the national supply chain over the holiday season at a time when the industry is already short 80,000 drivers.

“Given the nationwide shortage of truck drivers, it is vital that our industry has the relief it needs to keep critical goods moving, including food, fuel, medicine and the vaccine itself,” American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear said Friday.

In response to the pushback, a report by CNBC said that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh announced that most truckers are not covered by President Joe Biden’s Covid vaccine and testing requirements for private businesses, a win for an industry that had warned of potential walkouts that would disrupt already strained supply chains.

“We’ve heard some pushback from truckers today. The ironic thing is most truckers are not covered by this, because they’re driving a truck, they’re in a cab, they’re by themselves, they wouldn’t be covered by this,” Walsh said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes late Thursday.

However, the mandate exempts workers “who do not report to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present,” including truckers who are alone in their cab or who are not interacting with others at their point of departure or destinations, according to the Department of Labor. People who work from home or exclusively outdoors are also exempt.

“All indications thus far from the Department of Labor suggest this exemption does apply to the commercial truck driver population,” Spear said on Friday in a statement, hailing the provisions “as an enormous victory for our association and industry.”

The vaccination and testing requirements would apply to “truck drivers who work in teams (i.e., two people in a truck cab), or those who interact with people in buildings at their destinations or starting points,” a Labor Department spokesperson told CNBC.

Despite the exemptions, Spear still criticized the mandate, accusing OSHA of “using extraordinary authority unwisely, applying it across all industries at an arbitrary threshold of 100 employees that fails to factor in actual risks.”

“We are weighing all options of recourse to ensure every segment of our industry’s workforce is shielded from the unintended consequences of this misguided mandate,” Spear said.

Angelenos Fight Back Over Strict COVID Rules

The Los Angeles Times reports that Thousands of people gathered outside Los Angeles City Hall to protest COVID-19 vaccination mandates on Monday – the day the city began enforcing some of the nation’s strictest vaccination verification rules for businesses.

L.A. now requires proof of full COVID-19 vaccination to enter indoor restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, hair and nail salons, gyms, museums, bowling alleys, performance venues and other spaces.

Already faced with at least two lawsuits over its coronavirus-related student vaccination mandate, the Los Angeles Unified School District is now being sued over a similar requirement for employees to get their COVID-19 shots.

According to the report in Daily News, Health Freedom Defense Fund, a Wyoming-based organization that advocates against mandatory masking, testing and vaccinations, and six LAUSD employees filed a lawsuit against the district last week, challenging L.A. Unified’s staff vaccination mandate.

California Educators for Medical Freedom, founded by LAUSD employees opposed to a vaccine mandate, was inadvertently left off as a plaintiff, but the complaint will be amended to include the group, Leslie Manookian, founder and president of Health Freedom Defense Fund, said on Monday, Nov. 8.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint names as defendants Megan Reilly, the district’s interim superintendent; Ileana Davalos, chief human resources officer; and all seven school board members.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs challenged the need for the COVID-19 vaccines, stating in the complaint that they do not prevent infections or transmission of the coronavirus, and that their effectiveness wanes after several months. The complaint also states that the vaccination mandate violates an individual’s right to “personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity and the right to reject medical treatment,” as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

“That’s what LAUSD is doing to these teachers and staff at this school district,” she added. “They are forcing them to make a choice between caring for their families and a medical intervention they don’t want.”

Employees who did not meet a mid-October deadline for providing proof of having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were prohibited from reporting to work in person. Some were provided accommodations, including being reassigned to a remote position, but not everyone who sought an exemption were granted one. Even if an exemption was granted, not everyone received a workplace accommodation, as was the case for most of the six employees named as plaintiffs in this lawsuit, according to the complaint.

As part of its vaccination mandate, LAUSD agreed to pay unvaccinated employees impacted by the mandate through Oct. 31. It could have begun firing employees starting Nov. 1, though it’s also possible some employees are using their “benefitted time” or have been placed on leave.

The district is requiring students 12 and older to receive their first vaccine dose by Nov. 21 and the second by Dec. 19, before second semester starts in January.

LAUSD has been hit with at least two lawsuits over its student mandate. Attorneys for one of the suits, filed by the California chapter of Children’s Health Defense and the Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids, submitted a motion this week seeking a preliminary injunction to halt LAUSD’s student mandate.

Federal Court of Appeals Stays OSHA Vaccination Mandate

Over the weekend, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the requirement by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that those workers be vaccinated by Jan. 4 or face mask requirements and weekly tests.

The White House expects the new regulation created last week to “impact over 80 million workers in private sector businesses.”

Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted Saturday “Yesterday, I sued the Biden Admin over its unlawful OSHA vax mandate.” He then added “WE WON. Just this morning, citing “grave statutory and constitutional issues,” the 5th Circuit stayed the mandate. The fight is not over and I will never stop resisting this Admin’s unconstitutional overreach.”

His case was joined by the court into a master case which included several other states in the 5th Circuit, as well as a long list of large employers who also filed several separate actions seeking the same relief.

The Judge who issued the order wrote “Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court. The Government shall respond to the petitioners’ motion for a permanent injunction by 5:00 PM on Monday, November 8. The petitioners shall file any reply by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, November 9.”

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the action stops Democratic President Joe Biden “from moving forward with his unlawful overreach.”

“The president will not impose medical procedures on the American people without the checks and balances afforded by the constitution,” said a statement from Landry, a Republican.

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda said the U.S. Department of Labor is “confident in its legal authority to issue the emergency temporary standard on vaccination and testing.”

OSHA has the authority “to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them,” she said.

The brief filed by the Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc. Choice Staffing, LLC and Staff Force, Inc., in a companion case, lays out the essential theory supporting the Order. “Of the nine emergency temporary standards published prior to this year, three were not challenged. The six that were challenged, only one was fully upheld, and most were stayed prior to enforcement. OSHA has once again acted illegally because, as shown below, the subsection that gives it authority issue an ETS violates the nondelegation doctrine under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Such circuit decisions normally apply to states within a district – Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, in this case – but Landry said the language employed by the judges gave the decision a national scope.

New Study of Vaccination Outcomes of 780 Thousand Veterans

A new study just published in Science, which analyzed the records of nearly 800,000 US veterans of all ages found that the three main Covid-19 vaccines experienced ‘dramatic’ drops in efficacy over six months.

Prior to this study, three reports of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in August 2021 demonstrated protection against infection had declined in mid-summer as the Delta variant rose to dominance; protection against hospitalization and death remained high.

This phenomenon has been most comprehensively monitored in Israel, where high levels of transmission of the Delta variant led to a resurgent outbreak in mid-June 2021, despite a successful nationwide campaign to vaccinate the population.

This new study examined SARS-CoV-2 infection and deaths by vaccination status in 780,225 Veterans during the period February 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, encompassing the emergence and dominance of the Delta variant in the U.S.

Between early March and September, as the Delta variant rapidly became the dominant strain worldwide, the ability of Moderna’s two-dose vaccine to prevent infections dropped from 89% – 58%, Pfizer’s went from 87% – 45%, and J&J’s single-dose vaccine went from 86% to just 13%.

The vaccines’ ability to prevent death in older Americans remained somewhat robust over the same period, according to the report.

Among veterans 65 and older who were inoculated with the Moderna vaccine, those who developed a so-called breakthrough infection were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated veterans of the same age.

Older veterans who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and subsequently experienced a breakthrough infection were 70% less likely to die than were their unvaccinated peers.

And when older vets who got a single jab of the J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 52% less likely to die than their peers who didn’t get any shots.

OSHA Posts Vaccination Rules for Employer’s of 100 or More

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination. They have issued a shorter “Fact Sheet” to help employers understand the requirements.

Covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.

This ETS applies to employers with a total of 100 or more employees at any time the standard is in effect. The ETS is effective immediately upon publication in Federal Register. To comply, employers must ensure provisions are addressed in the workplace by the following dates:

– – 30 days after publication: All requirements other than testing for employees who have not completed their entire primary vaccination dose(s)
– – 60 days after publication: Testing for employees who have not received all doses required for a primary vaccination

The ETS requires employers to:

– – (1) require employees to promptly provide notice when they receive a positive COVID- 19 test or are diagnosed with COVID-19;
– – (2) immediately remove any employee from the workplace, regardless of vaccination status, who received a positive COVID-19 test or is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a licensed healthcare provider;
– – (3) keep removed employees out of the workplace until they meet criteria for returning to work.

In light of the unique occupational safety and health dangers presented by COVID-19, and against the backdrop of the uncertain economic environment of a pandemic, OSHA is proceeding in a stepwise fashion in addressing the emergency this rule covers.

OSHA needs additional time to assess the capacity of smaller employers, and is seeking comment to help the agency make that determination. Nonetheless, the agency is acting to protect workers now in adopting a standard that will reach two-thirds of all private-sector workers in the nation, including those working in the largest facilities, where the most deadly outbreaks of COVID-19 can occur.

OSHA intends the ETS to address comprehensively the occupational safety and health issues of vaccination, wearing face coverings, and testing for COVID-19. Thus, the standard is intended to preempt States, and political subdivisions of States, from adopting and enforcing workplace requirements relating to these issues, except under the authority of a Federally-approved State Plan.

In particular, OSHA intends to preempt any State or local requirements that ban or limit an employer from requiring vaccination, face covering, or testing. Additional information on the preemption of State and local laws is found in Section VI.A. of the ETS preamble.

OSHA will continue to monitor trends in COVID-19 infections and death as more of the workforce and the general population become fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and as the pandemic continues to evolve. Where OSHA finds a grave danger from the virus no longer exists, or new information indicates a change in measures necessary to address the grave danger, OSHA may update this ETS, as appropriate.

Although this ETS takes effect immediately, it also serves as a proposal under Section 6(b) of the OSH Act(29 U.S.C. 655(b)) for a final standard.

Accordingly, OSHA seeks comment on all aspects of this ETS and whether it should be adopted as a final standard. OSHA encourages commenters to explain why they prefer or disfavor particular policy choices, and include any relevant studies, experiences, anecdotes or other information that may help support the comment.

City of LA to Implement Toughest Venue Vaccine Verification Rules

Los Angeles city officials are set to implement some of the nation’s strictest COVID-19 vaccine verification rules next week, but they don’t plan to immediately cite or fine those who run afoul of the new regulations. According to the article in the Los Angeles Times, L.A. officials plan to start with educational and outreach efforts, rather than immediately penalize businesses when rules go into effect Monday.

That’s similar to the approach of officials in Los Angeles County as a whole. While both the county and city have rules requiring residents to show proof of vaccination to enter certain businesses, the county’s rules affect fewer types of establishments compared with those of the city.

Enforcement of the city program, dubbed SafePassLA, won’t officially begin until Nov. 29. Starting that date, businesses or venues that flout the rules will face penalties – at first a warning, then an escalating series of fines starting at $1,000 and topping out at $5,000 for a fourth or subsequent violation.

The city’s rules are expansive, requiring proof of full COVID-19 vaccination to enter indoor restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, hair and nail salons, coffee shops, gyms, museums, bowling alleys, performance venues and other spaces.

Attendees of outdoor events with 5,000 or more people also will have to show proof of vaccination or that they’ve recently tested negative for the coronavirus.

L.A. County, on the other hand, has imposed vaccine verification requirements in only a few business sectors: indoor bars, wineries, breweries, distilleries, nightclubs and lounges. Initially, patrons and employees in those spaces needed to show only they’d received at least one vaccine dose. But as of Thursday, they are required to demonstrate they are fully vaccinated.

L.A. County’s verification requirement has been in place for nearly a month, but health officials said this week they have yet to cite any businesses for noncompliance. County officials have regularly said they favor education over enforcement when implementing new coronavirus-related health measures.

Though it’s early, it appears many businesses are already toeing the line. From Oct. 16 to 22, county public health inspectors visited 78 bars and found 85% of them were following the requirement to verify customers’ vaccination status. And preliminary findings from the weekend of Oct. 23 and 24 indicate that 90% of bars and 100% of visited lounges and nightclubs were in compliance.

Some have worried that the disconnect between the city and county requirements will spark confusion among businesses and customers, potentially leading to unwitting violations. County health officials confirmed this week they are not considering any changes to their rules.

NCCI Releases Countrywide Court Case Update

The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) released its next updated Countrywide Court Case Update. The November 2021 edition provides a look at some of the key cases and decisions NCCI’s Legal Team monitors that may impact workers compensation across the states. This report contains updated information on cases previously introduced and presents new cases and decisions including COVID-19-related rulings.

“The Countrywide Court Case Update is a valuable resource that NCCI provides to insurers, regulators, and other industry stakeholders,” said Bill Donnell, NCCI’s President and CEO. “NCCI produces this robust report to inform on state and federal legal developments that can impact the workers compensation system.”

This report, provides insights on topics such as:

– – COVID-19 court cases
– – Workers compensation exclusive remedy
– – Challenges to state adoption of third-party guides
– – Developments in marijuana-including reimbursement and employment-related questions
– – Air ambulance reimbursement: state vs. federal law
– – Additional federal and state developments listed by geographic zone

In California, The California Second Appellate District will consider in See’s Candies, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, whether WC exclusive remedy bars a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that the employer’s failure to provide sufficient safeguards against COVID-19 caused the death of the employee’s spouse, who was infected after the employee contracted the virus at work.

And a case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court is significant to California since the state is governed by the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal.

On August 19, 2020, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Washington 971 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2020), as amended on April 15, 2021, affirmed a federal district court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington workers compensation statute that creates a presumption of compensability for certain types of diseases contracted by federal contractors working at the Hanford federal nuclear cleanup site.

The court rejected the federal government’s argument that the workers compensation statute violated the federal intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which invalidates state laws that seek to regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the federal government and those with whom it deals.

The court further concluded that the workers compensation statute falls within the scope of a federal law (40 U.S.C. § 3172) that authorizes the states to regulate workers compensation on federal land to the same extent that the states can regulate on nonfederal land.

A petition for Writ of Certiorari in this case was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in September 2021. The essential question presented is whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.”

Jury Finds SoCal Doctor Guilty of Sales of Unapproved Drug

A Southern California physician has been found guilty of 26 felony charges for fraudulently distributing an unapproved cancer treatment over a six-year period, charging up to $2,000 per bottle.

Benedict Liao, 81, a.k.a. “Wada Masao,” and “Masao A. Wada,” of Fullerton, was found guilty of seven counts of wire fraud, 11 counts of selling a misbranded drug and eight counts of selling an unapproved new drug.

According to evidence presented at his five-day trial, Liao operated the Oeyama-Moto Cancer Research Foundation, which had offices in Monterey Park and, later, in West Covina.

Using the alias “Masao A. Wada, M.D.” Liao submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2011 and 2012 an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in which he stated that he planned to engage in clinical trials of a product called Allesgen, which he told FDA and stated in promotional material was intended to treat and cure many types of cancer. FDA received these applications and both times informed Liao that the IND applications for Allesgen had been placed on a full clinical hold due to deficiencies in the submissions.

The FDA required that a drug distributed under an IND application bear a label stating that it was a “New Drug – Limited by Federal law to investigational use” and Liao told FDA that he would place a label on Allesgen with such a statement.

Instead of doing so, Liao manufactured Allesgen in Fullerton and distributed the unapproved drug with a label calling Allesgen a “supplement,” not a drug, and this label stated that it “had not been evaluated by the FDA” and was not intended to treat any disease.

Liao sold and distributed Allesgen at a price generally set at $2,000 per bottle, plus shipping, to customers in various states and in foreign countries. Over the years he received approximately $1,600,,000 in revenue from this enterprise.

The jury found that Liao schemed to defraud buyers of Allesgen by failing to inform them it was not an approved cancer treatment, that FDA had placed it on hold, barring any distribution of it, that he was not allowed to charge anything for it, and that it could have side effects that were unpredictable and could be serious.

Liao remains free, and his sentencing is scheduled for February 2022. According to federal sentencing guidelines, he faces a maximum prison sentence of nearly 200 years. Sentences in wire fraud cases are often connected to the amount of money involved, though Liao is unlikely to do much time at all due to his advanced age and poor health.

FDA Scheduled to Review Merck COVID Pill This Month

Reuters reports that Merck has signed eight deals to sell more than a total of 2 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 pill molnupiravir to governments around the world.

It has applied for approval in the United States and said it can make 10 million courses in 2021. A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee is scheduled to evaluate the safety and efficacy data of the pill on Nov. 30 and decide whether or not to approve it for emergency use authorization in the U.S.

Last week the company reached a deal with the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool that will allow more companies to manufacture generic versions of the pill with a royalty-free license applying to 105 low- and middle-income countries. So far Merck has agreed to license the drug to several India-based generic drugmakers.

Merck CEO Robert Davis told CNBC on Thursday the drugmaker is ready to produce and distribute tens of millions of doses of its Covid antiviral pills if given regulatory approval.

The Merck pill forces the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus to mutate itself to death. The drug tricks the virus into using the drug for replication, then inserting errors into the virus’ genetic code once replication is underway. When enough copying errors occur, the virus is essentially killed off, unable to replicate any further.

But according to an article in Forbes the drug raises two key concerns. The first is the drug’s potential mutagenicity, and the possibility that its use could lead to birth defects or cancerous tumors. The second is a danger that is far greater and potentially far deadlier: the drug’s potential to supercharge SARS-CoV-2 mutations and unleash a more virulent variant upon the world.

The company claims the antiviral pill it’s developing can cut hospitalizations and deaths among people with COVID-19 by half. The results haven’t yet been peer reviewed. But if the drug candidate is authorized by regulators, it would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. By contrast, the other currently authorized drugs must be delivered intravenously or injected.

A pill could make treating patients earlier on in their infection much easier – and more effective. It could also keep hospitals from overflowing, especially in places where vaccination rates are still low.

The other therapies on offer against COVID-19, Gilead Science’s antiviral remdesivir and a monoclonal antibody cocktail from biotech firm Regeneron, must be administered intravenously or by injection. That makes it difficult for people to access the therapies before they are sick enough to land in hospital. And remdesivir is approved only for those who are already hospitalized with COVID-19.

Molnupiravir was so effective in a phase 3 trial involving COVID-19-positive people at risk of severe illness that clinicians halted enrollment early.

Las Vegas Woman Pleads Guilty to $176 K EDD Fraud

A Las Vegas woman pleaded guilty to using at least 40 stolen identities to fraudulently collect approximately $175,622 in unemployment insurance benefits from the California Employment Development Department.

According to court documents and admissions made in court, Danielle Lacharis Buck (aka Danielle Lacharis Lakey), 45, participated in a scheme to defraud the California EDD into paying her approximately $175,622 in unemployment insurance benefits.

As part of the scheme, Buck obtained stolen identities through her job in the medical industry. She used her access to patient and co-worker information to steal personal identifying information – such as names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of unsuspecting individuals – and then electronically filed false unemployment claims using the stolen names and information.

In total, Buck filed more than 50 false unemployment insurance claims using at least 40 different stolen identities. She withdrew cash from an unemployment insurance benefits debit cards at ATMs in the Las Vegas and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

Buck pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. She faces a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for mail fraud and a mandatory minimum two-year term in prison for aggravated identity theft. U.S. District Judge Kent J. Dawson scheduled sentencing for January 25, 2022.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Chiou for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Quentin Heiden of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), Los Angeles Region made the announcement.

The case was investigated by the DOL-OIG. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Schmale is prosecuting the case.

On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts.