At Biden’s direction, the OSHA issued a rule earlier this month requiring U.S. employers with 100 or more workers to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergoing weekly tests for the virus by Jan 4. Businesses that don’t comply face thousands of dollars in fines.
The rule prompted a slate of legal challenges from at least 27 states as well as business and religious groups who argue the mandate is unconstitutional. Biden and other federal officials argue the mandate is necessary to end the COVID-19 pandemic and fully reopen the economy.
A few days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the requirement that those workers be vaccinated by Jan. 4 or face mask requirements and weekly tests. The Federal Government was ordered to respond to the motion for a permanent injunction by 5:00 PM on Monday, November 8 and the petitioners in the case were ordered to file any reply by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, November 9."
After reviewing the responses, the appeals court reaffirmed its decision Friday to enact a stay on President Biden’s workplace vaccination mandate. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered OSHA to "take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order." The decision was the latest development in what is expected to be a lengthy legal battle over the mandate’s legality.
The court commenced it opinion by noting that "in its fifty-year history, OSHA has issued just ten ETSs. Six were challenged in court; only one survived. The opinion first considered whether the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate are likely to succeed on the merits. It concluded that for "a multitude of reasons, they are."
One example is "the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a "grave danger" in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat)."
"OSHA cannot possibly show that every workplace covered by the Mandate currently has COVID-positive employees, or that every industry covered by the Mandate has had or will have "outbreaks."
"The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees."
The court went on to say "It is critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here."
"It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits.... The Commerce Clause power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power."
"Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation." ...
The rule prompted a slate of legal challenges from at least 27 states as well as business and religious groups who argue the mandate is unconstitutional. Biden and other federal officials argue the mandate is necessary to end the COVID-19 pandemic and fully reopen the economy.
A few days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the requirement that those workers be vaccinated by Jan. 4 or face mask requirements and weekly tests. The Federal Government was ordered to respond to the motion for a permanent injunction by 5:00 PM on Monday, November 8 and the petitioners in the case were ordered to file any reply by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, November 9."
After reviewing the responses, the appeals court reaffirmed its decision Friday to enact a stay on President Biden’s workplace vaccination mandate. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered OSHA to "take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order." The decision was the latest development in what is expected to be a lengthy legal battle over the mandate’s legality.
The court commenced it opinion by noting that "in its fifty-year history, OSHA has issued just ten ETSs. Six were challenged in court; only one survived. The opinion first considered whether the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate are likely to succeed on the merits. It concluded that for "a multitude of reasons, they are."
One example is "the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a "grave danger" in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat)."
"OSHA cannot possibly show that every workplace covered by the Mandate currently has COVID-positive employees, or that every industry covered by the Mandate has had or will have "outbreaks."
"The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees."
The court went on to say "It is critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here."
"It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits.... The Commerce Clause power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power."
"Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation." ...
As mandates continue to come down from the state, local governments are taking a stand by passing resolutions to avoid COVID related mandates.
The East Bay Times reports that six of the seven City of Oroville council members voted to make Oroville a Constitutional Republic City.
Vice Mayor Scott Thomson, who requested the resolution, says "What we are doing is protecting our citizens' rights as much as we can on the local level.
"In a way, we are acting as a sanctuary city for our citizens and their rights and freedoms protected by the U.S. and state constitutions," he added. "Gavin Newsom modeled this type of declaration for us when he declared San Francisco a sanctuary city for what he believed to be overreach by the federal government against his citizens."
Thompson requested the measure, which was passed 6-1 by the city council on Nov. 2. The resolution is intended to allow the city to opt out of enforcing "any executive orders issued by the state of California or by the United States federal government that are overreaching or clearly violate our constitutionally protected rights."
And in neighboring Nevada, the Nevada Independent reports that Lyon County became the latest rural county to declare an economic emergency and decline to enforce the governor’s COVID-19 directives on the basis that they hurt businesses.
The county of about 58,000 people joins the rural resistance along with White Pine, Elko and Eureka counties, which are less populous.
"It's very important the rural counties of our great state to be united with one message going forward," said Lyon County Commissioner Ken Gray, who spearheaded the effort. "We must stand together as one to face the abuses of our civil liberties which have taken place and stop them from going any further. Instead of working with the local government of Nevada as he should, the governor has chosen to ignore them and their residents."
And not far away in Oklahoma, The Oklahoman reports that in one of his first acts as the head of the Oklahoma National Guard, new Adjutant General Thomas Mancino ordered that no members of the Oklahoma National Guard be required to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
The memo obtained by The Oklahoman also notes "no negative administrative or legal action will be taken" against guard members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.
And Courthouse News reports that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed sweeping restrictions on Covid-19 safety measures into law late Friday following a whirlwind three-day special legislative session at the tail end of last month.
The restrictions, which affect the authority of schools, health officials and private businesses, have been met with pushback from leaders in those communities and are expected to be met with legal challenges.
Some of the restrictions under the new legislation include prohibiting businesses that do not receive federal funds from requiring employees to receive a Covid-19 vaccine or request proof of it. The rule also applies to government agencies and public schools ...
The East Bay Times reports that six of the seven City of Oroville council members voted to make Oroville a Constitutional Republic City.
Vice Mayor Scott Thomson, who requested the resolution, says "What we are doing is protecting our citizens' rights as much as we can on the local level.
"In a way, we are acting as a sanctuary city for our citizens and their rights and freedoms protected by the U.S. and state constitutions," he added. "Gavin Newsom modeled this type of declaration for us when he declared San Francisco a sanctuary city for what he believed to be overreach by the federal government against his citizens."
Thompson requested the measure, which was passed 6-1 by the city council on Nov. 2. The resolution is intended to allow the city to opt out of enforcing "any executive orders issued by the state of California or by the United States federal government that are overreaching or clearly violate our constitutionally protected rights."
And in neighboring Nevada, the Nevada Independent reports that Lyon County became the latest rural county to declare an economic emergency and decline to enforce the governor’s COVID-19 directives on the basis that they hurt businesses.
The county of about 58,000 people joins the rural resistance along with White Pine, Elko and Eureka counties, which are less populous.
"It's very important the rural counties of our great state to be united with one message going forward," said Lyon County Commissioner Ken Gray, who spearheaded the effort. "We must stand together as one to face the abuses of our civil liberties which have taken place and stop them from going any further. Instead of working with the local government of Nevada as he should, the governor has chosen to ignore them and their residents."
And not far away in Oklahoma, The Oklahoman reports that in one of his first acts as the head of the Oklahoma National Guard, new Adjutant General Thomas Mancino ordered that no members of the Oklahoma National Guard be required to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
The memo obtained by The Oklahoman also notes "no negative administrative or legal action will be taken" against guard members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.
And Courthouse News reports that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed sweeping restrictions on Covid-19 safety measures into law late Friday following a whirlwind three-day special legislative session at the tail end of last month.
The restrictions, which affect the authority of schools, health officials and private businesses, have been met with pushback from leaders in those communities and are expected to be met with legal challenges.
Some of the restrictions under the new legislation include prohibiting businesses that do not receive federal funds from requiring employees to receive a Covid-19 vaccine or request proof of it. The rule also applies to government agencies and public schools ...
In 2013 Salvador Guzman rear-ended Mitchell Hunter Oakes' vehicle. Oaks employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Liberty Insurance Corporation, paid $256,631.76 for his treatment.
Oaks filed a civil action against Guzmman and his employer Progressive Transportation Services Inc. Liberty Mutual filed a complaint in intervention, seeking to recover against any judgment a lien for workers’ compensation benefits paid to plaintiff, as authorized by Labor Code section 3852. Liberty subsequently assigned its $256 thousand workers’ compensation lien to defendants and was dismissed from the case.
In November 2015, defendants served an offer to settle under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for $200,000. Plaintiff rejected the offer.
Before the jury trial commenced the parties stipulated that a workers’ compensation lien existed in the amount of $256,631.76. The jury returned a verdict of $115,000 in plaintiff’s favor, and the trial court entered an initial judgment for that amount in plaintiff’s favor.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses under Labor Code section 3856, subdivision (b), claiming a $50,600 fee (44 percent of the jury verdict pursuant to his contingency agreement with his attorney), and $28,343.52 in costs. Defendants opposed the motion for fees and moved to tax plaintiff’s postoffer section 998 costs, arguing he should not recover fees and postoffer costs because the jury verdict did not exceed defendants’ section 998 offer.
Although the trial court noted that Labor Code section 3856 required costs to be paid from the judgment, the court added plaintiff’s attorney fees and allowable costs to the jury’s $115,000 verdict rather than subtracting them from that amount. The court calculated plaintiff’s award as "$115,000 + $50,600 + $475.98 = $166,075.98." The trial court awarded defendants costs of "$174,830.20" under section 998, subdivision (c)(1). The court then concluded "[t]he defense has a net gain over the plaintiff of $8,754.22, and thereby becomes the prevailing party, i.e., ‘the party with a NET monetary recovery.’"
Oakes appealed the judgment that was calculated to be $8,754.22 judgment entered in defendants’ favor after applying both statutes. The Court of Appeal affirmed in the partially published case of Oakes v Progressive Transportation Services.
The purpose of section 998 is "to encourage settlement by providing a strong financial disincentive to a party - whether it be a plaintiff or a defendant - who fails to achieve a better result than that party could have achieved by accepting his or her opponent’s settlement offer."
The parties disagree on the sequence in which the statutes at issue should be applied and which statute takes priority in application.
Applying the cost-shifting provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 before the Labor Code section 3856 allocations is consistent with applicable case authority.
We have no basis for overturning the $8,754.22 judgment entered in defendants’ favor ...
Oaks filed a civil action against Guzmman and his employer Progressive Transportation Services Inc. Liberty Mutual filed a complaint in intervention, seeking to recover against any judgment a lien for workers’ compensation benefits paid to plaintiff, as authorized by Labor Code section 3852. Liberty subsequently assigned its $256 thousand workers’ compensation lien to defendants and was dismissed from the case.
In November 2015, defendants served an offer to settle under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for $200,000. Plaintiff rejected the offer.
Before the jury trial commenced the parties stipulated that a workers’ compensation lien existed in the amount of $256,631.76. The jury returned a verdict of $115,000 in plaintiff’s favor, and the trial court entered an initial judgment for that amount in plaintiff’s favor.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses under Labor Code section 3856, subdivision (b), claiming a $50,600 fee (44 percent of the jury verdict pursuant to his contingency agreement with his attorney), and $28,343.52 in costs. Defendants opposed the motion for fees and moved to tax plaintiff’s postoffer section 998 costs, arguing he should not recover fees and postoffer costs because the jury verdict did not exceed defendants’ section 998 offer.
Although the trial court noted that Labor Code section 3856 required costs to be paid from the judgment, the court added plaintiff’s attorney fees and allowable costs to the jury’s $115,000 verdict rather than subtracting them from that amount. The court calculated plaintiff’s award as "$115,000 + $50,600 + $475.98 = $166,075.98." The trial court awarded defendants costs of "$174,830.20" under section 998, subdivision (c)(1). The court then concluded "[t]he defense has a net gain over the plaintiff of $8,754.22, and thereby becomes the prevailing party, i.e., ‘the party with a NET monetary recovery.’"
Oakes appealed the judgment that was calculated to be $8,754.22 judgment entered in defendants’ favor after applying both statutes. The Court of Appeal affirmed in the partially published case of Oakes v Progressive Transportation Services.
The purpose of section 998 is "to encourage settlement by providing a strong financial disincentive to a party - whether it be a plaintiff or a defendant - who fails to achieve a better result than that party could have achieved by accepting his or her opponent’s settlement offer."
The parties disagree on the sequence in which the statutes at issue should be applied and which statute takes priority in application.
Applying the cost-shifting provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 before the Labor Code section 3856 allocations is consistent with applicable case authority.
We have no basis for overturning the $8,754.22 judgment entered in defendants’ favor ...
Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore said he is ready to fire any of the department's 12,000 employees who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get tested twice a week for the disease.
Moore's stance contrasts with Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who recently went so far as to call a news conference to blast a similar vaccine mandate enacted by the county. The county sheriff predicted mass departures among his deputies as a result, a warning also made but not necessarily panning out by police union officials in Pittsburgh and Chicago.
According to the report by CBS News, the LAPD's goal of having a fully vaccinated workforce is to ensure the safety and welfare of the department's officers, civilian workforce, their families and the public, Moore told CBS MoneyWatch.
The LAPD on November 4 began having commanding officers personally delivering notices to 3,500 unvaccinated employees - including 2,239 who had requested an exemption - informing them of the requirements. The approach involves a "one-on-one conversation that was respectful," said Moore, who expressed a desire to "turn down the volume" on the national debate taking place over vaccine mandates.
So far, the LAPD policy appears to be working. More than 60% of the unvaccinated employees have been officially notified one-on-one of the COVID-19 rules, and as of early Monday all but four had agreed to get vaccinated or request an exemption, Moore said.
Those four were sent home pending disciplinary hearings, with formal steps taken to terminate two of the employees and the others in line for removal if they don't change their minds, Moore said.
Nearly eight of 10 LAPD employees are fully vaccinated, and 78% have received at least one dose, with 172 workers getting their first shot in the last week.
As in other police forces around the U.S., however, the LAPD has met some resistance to its COVID-19 rule, including a request for a temporary restraining order by the union representing its officers, which was denied by a judge on Wednesday.
"I will not comply at all. The only thing mandatory for me right now is defiance," LAPD Officer Mike McMahon told CBSLA. The 14-year veteran of the police department, who was among those staging a recent protest across from City Hall, also predicted the vaccine requirement would spark a mass exodus of fellow employees.
The LAPD is probing photos posted on social media of three LAPD officers walking toward a vaccine-mandate protest in uniform, but Moore believes they were monitoring the event as part of their jobs and not as participants.
"If anyone went on-duty-capacity and in uniform and participated in that demonstration that would be wrong," Moore said, adding he would await the findings of the formal investigation ...
Moore's stance contrasts with Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who recently went so far as to call a news conference to blast a similar vaccine mandate enacted by the county. The county sheriff predicted mass departures among his deputies as a result, a warning also made but not necessarily panning out by police union officials in Pittsburgh and Chicago.
According to the report by CBS News, the LAPD's goal of having a fully vaccinated workforce is to ensure the safety and welfare of the department's officers, civilian workforce, their families and the public, Moore told CBS MoneyWatch.
The LAPD on November 4 began having commanding officers personally delivering notices to 3,500 unvaccinated employees - including 2,239 who had requested an exemption - informing them of the requirements. The approach involves a "one-on-one conversation that was respectful," said Moore, who expressed a desire to "turn down the volume" on the national debate taking place over vaccine mandates.
So far, the LAPD policy appears to be working. More than 60% of the unvaccinated employees have been officially notified one-on-one of the COVID-19 rules, and as of early Monday all but four had agreed to get vaccinated or request an exemption, Moore said.
Those four were sent home pending disciplinary hearings, with formal steps taken to terminate two of the employees and the others in line for removal if they don't change their minds, Moore said.
Nearly eight of 10 LAPD employees are fully vaccinated, and 78% have received at least one dose, with 172 workers getting their first shot in the last week.
As in other police forces around the U.S., however, the LAPD has met some resistance to its COVID-19 rule, including a request for a temporary restraining order by the union representing its officers, which was denied by a judge on Wednesday.
"I will not comply at all. The only thing mandatory for me right now is defiance," LAPD Officer Mike McMahon told CBSLA. The 14-year veteran of the police department, who was among those staging a recent protest across from City Hall, also predicted the vaccine requirement would spark a mass exodus of fellow employees.
The LAPD is probing photos posted on social media of three LAPD officers walking toward a vaccine-mandate protest in uniform, but Moore believes they were monitoring the event as part of their jobs and not as participants.
"If anyone went on-duty-capacity and in uniform and participated in that demonstration that would be wrong," Moore said, adding he would await the findings of the formal investigation ...
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. for charging "wait time" fees to passengers who, because of disability, need more time to enter a car. Uber’s policies and practices of charging wait time fees based on disability have harmed many passengers and potential passengers with disabilities throughout the country.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Uber violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination by private transportation companies like Uber.
In April 2016, Uber began charging passengers wait time fees in a number of cities, eventually expanding the policy nationwide. Wait time fees start two minutes after the Uber car arrives at the pickup location and are charged until the car begins its trip.
The department’s complaint alleges that Uber violates the ADA by failing to reasonably modify its wait time fee policy for passengers who, because of disability, need more than two minutes to get in an Uber car. Passengers with disabilities may need additional time to enter a car for various reasons. A passenger may, for example, use a wheelchair or walker that needs to be broken down and stored in the car. Or a passenger who is blind may need additional time to safely walk from the pickup location to the car itself. The department’s lawsuit alleges that, even when Uber is aware that a passenger’s need for additional time is clearly disability-based, Uber starts charging a wait time fee at the two-minute mark.
The lawsuit seeks relief from the court, including ordering Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the department asks the court to order Uber to modify its wait time fee policy to comply with the ADA; train its staff and drivers on the ADA; pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees; and pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.
"Uber’s wait time fees take a significant toll on people with disabilities," said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California. "Passengers with disabilities who need additional boarding time are entitled to access ridesharing services without discrimination. This lawsuit seeks to assist people with disabilities to live their lives with independence and dignity, as the ADA guarantees."
"People with disabilities deserve equal access to all areas of community life, including the private transportation services provided by companies like Uber," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. "This lawsuit seeks to bring Uber into compliance with the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act while sending a powerful message that Uber cannot penalize passengers with disabilities simply because they need more time to get into a car. Uber and other companies that provide transportation services must ensure equal access for all people, including those with disabilities."
If someone believes they have been a victim of disability discrimination by Uber because they, or someone they were traveling with, were charged wait time fees, please contact 833-591-0425 (toll-free), 202-305-6786, or send an email to Uber.Fee@usdoj.gov.
...
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Uber violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination by private transportation companies like Uber.
In April 2016, Uber began charging passengers wait time fees in a number of cities, eventually expanding the policy nationwide. Wait time fees start two minutes after the Uber car arrives at the pickup location and are charged until the car begins its trip.
The department’s complaint alleges that Uber violates the ADA by failing to reasonably modify its wait time fee policy for passengers who, because of disability, need more than two minutes to get in an Uber car. Passengers with disabilities may need additional time to enter a car for various reasons. A passenger may, for example, use a wheelchair or walker that needs to be broken down and stored in the car. Or a passenger who is blind may need additional time to safely walk from the pickup location to the car itself. The department’s lawsuit alleges that, even when Uber is aware that a passenger’s need for additional time is clearly disability-based, Uber starts charging a wait time fee at the two-minute mark.
The lawsuit seeks relief from the court, including ordering Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the department asks the court to order Uber to modify its wait time fee policy to comply with the ADA; train its staff and drivers on the ADA; pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees; and pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.
"Uber’s wait time fees take a significant toll on people with disabilities," said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California. "Passengers with disabilities who need additional boarding time are entitled to access ridesharing services without discrimination. This lawsuit seeks to assist people with disabilities to live their lives with independence and dignity, as the ADA guarantees."
"People with disabilities deserve equal access to all areas of community life, including the private transportation services provided by companies like Uber," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. "This lawsuit seeks to bring Uber into compliance with the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act while sending a powerful message that Uber cannot penalize passengers with disabilities simply because they need more time to get into a car. Uber and other companies that provide transportation services must ensure equal access for all people, including those with disabilities."
If someone believes they have been a victim of disability discrimination by Uber because they, or someone they were traveling with, were charged wait time fees, please contact 833-591-0425 (toll-free), 202-305-6786, or send an email to Uber.Fee@usdoj.gov.
...
Lean healthcare is the application of "lean" ideas in healthcare facilities to minimize waste in every process, procedure, and task through an ongoing system of improvement. Using lean principles, all members of the organization, from clinicians to operations and administration staff, continually strive to identify areas of waste and eliminate anything that does not add value for patients. Taiichi Ohno of Toyota, was the originator of lean principles. He described eight areas of waste that occur in every industry.
A new study found that Lean is a suitable methodology to accelerate patient recovery by reducing the time between on-the-job accidents and the beginning of physical therapy treatment.
The study identified ways to address inefficiencies in the workers' compensation system and concluded that eliminating pre-authorization for physical therapy and the additional lead time it creates can improve health outcomes and reduce claim costs.
Omar Taha, in collaboration with his peers designed and deployed multiple case studies to better understand the journey of an injured worker within the workers' compensation system.
This study was in partnership with a national healthcare provider in the field of workers' compensation to conduct direct observations in five of their clinics across Florida and Pennsylvania. Researchers analyzed the data of 263 injured workers with eight or more physical therapy visits who were treated at clinics in both states over 31 days.
The research concluded activities associated with the pre-authorization of treatment were the primary non-value-added activity from the perspective of the injured worker based on delayed physical therapy treatment. Removing pre-authorization requirements could significantly reduce the lead time for treatment of injured workers. An injured worker could, for example, visit their referring physician and complete their first physical therapy session within the same office visit.
Half of the injured Pennsylvania workers in the researchers' dataset attended their first physical therapy treatment within less than a day of obtaining a prescription whereas injured Florida workers required more than five days. In Florida, injured workers needed an average of 39.58 days to complete eight physical therapy visits compared to only 27.92 days to complete the same number of visits in Pennsylvania, a median of 34.09 vs. 22.15 days.
The disparity between the two states is likely due to Pennsylvania eliminating pre-authorization activities, according to the study.
"Physical therapy plays a significant role in the treatment of most work-related injuries and drives medical and indemnity costs of workers' compensation claims," said Taha, One Call senior director of continuous improvement and doctoral candidate in systems engineering at The George Washington University.
"Our findings corroborate that Lean is an effective methodology in identifying and removing administrative inefficiencies from the treatment process, which could accelerate patients' recovery, reduce administrative burden on healthcare providers, and improve the overall claim cost," said Taha.
"Patterns emerged that showed inefficiencies in the information flow between insurance companies, referring care providers, and treatment care providers," said Professor Thomas A. Mazzuchi from the Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at The George Washington University. "This negatively impacts the delivery of care for injured workers."
This was the first study to apply Lean methodology to workers' compensation. The paper titled "Uncovering inefficiencies in the workers' compensation industry using Lean methodology" was published in The TQM Journal ...
A new study found that Lean is a suitable methodology to accelerate patient recovery by reducing the time between on-the-job accidents and the beginning of physical therapy treatment.
The study identified ways to address inefficiencies in the workers' compensation system and concluded that eliminating pre-authorization for physical therapy and the additional lead time it creates can improve health outcomes and reduce claim costs.
Omar Taha, in collaboration with his peers designed and deployed multiple case studies to better understand the journey of an injured worker within the workers' compensation system.
This study was in partnership with a national healthcare provider in the field of workers' compensation to conduct direct observations in five of their clinics across Florida and Pennsylvania. Researchers analyzed the data of 263 injured workers with eight or more physical therapy visits who were treated at clinics in both states over 31 days.
The research concluded activities associated with the pre-authorization of treatment were the primary non-value-added activity from the perspective of the injured worker based on delayed physical therapy treatment. Removing pre-authorization requirements could significantly reduce the lead time for treatment of injured workers. An injured worker could, for example, visit their referring physician and complete their first physical therapy session within the same office visit.
Half of the injured Pennsylvania workers in the researchers' dataset attended their first physical therapy treatment within less than a day of obtaining a prescription whereas injured Florida workers required more than five days. In Florida, injured workers needed an average of 39.58 days to complete eight physical therapy visits compared to only 27.92 days to complete the same number of visits in Pennsylvania, a median of 34.09 vs. 22.15 days.
The disparity between the two states is likely due to Pennsylvania eliminating pre-authorization activities, according to the study.
"Physical therapy plays a significant role in the treatment of most work-related injuries and drives medical and indemnity costs of workers' compensation claims," said Taha, One Call senior director of continuous improvement and doctoral candidate in systems engineering at The George Washington University.
"Our findings corroborate that Lean is an effective methodology in identifying and removing administrative inefficiencies from the treatment process, which could accelerate patients' recovery, reduce administrative burden on healthcare providers, and improve the overall claim cost," said Taha.
"Patterns emerged that showed inefficiencies in the information flow between insurance companies, referring care providers, and treatment care providers," said Professor Thomas A. Mazzuchi from the Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at The George Washington University. "This negatively impacts the delivery of care for injured workers."
This was the first study to apply Lean methodology to workers' compensation. The paper titled "Uncovering inefficiencies in the workers' compensation industry using Lean methodology" was published in The TQM Journal ...
An Orange County Superior Court Judge ruled earlier this month that four drug companies cannot be held liable for California's opioid epidemic. It marked the first trial win for any drug companies in the more than 3,300 lawsuits filed by states and local governments over a drug abuse crisis that the U.S. government says led to nearly 500,000 opioid overdose deaths over two decades.
The only other opioid trial to reach a verdict resulted in an Oklahoma judge in 2019 ordering J&J to pay $465 million to the state. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court just reversed the verdict, finding the trial judge misinterpreted the state’s public nuisance law.
The Attorney General of Oklahoma sued three prescription opioid manufacturers and requested that the district court hold opioid manufacturers liable for violating Oklahoma's public nuisance statute. The State settled with the other opioid manufacturers and eventually dismissed all claims against J&J except public nuisance.
The State presented evidence that J&J used branded and unbranded marketing, which actively promoted the concept that physicians were under treating pain. Ultimately, the State argued J&J overstated the benefits of opioid use, downplayed the dangers, and failed to disclose the lack of evidence supporting long-term use in the interest of increasing J&J's profits.
The district court conducted a 33-day bench trial with the single issue being whether J&J was responsible for creating a public nuisance in the marketing and selling of its opioid products. The district court held J&J liable under Oklahoma's public nuisance statute, and J&J appealed.
The question before the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether the conduct of an opioid manufacturer in marketing and selling its products constituted a public nuisance
In a 5-1 ruling, the high court held that the district court's expansion of public nuisance law went too far. Oklahoma public nuisance law does not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids.
Writing for the majority, Justice James R. Winchester said stopping the opioid crisis is a "laudable goal" but cannot be done by "reshaping" the public nuisance law that has traditionally been used to address "discrete, localized" problems.
"The district court's expansion of public nuisance law allows courts to manage public policy matters that should be dealt with by the legislative and executive branches; the branches that are more capable than courts to balance the competing interests at play in societal problems," Winchester wrote. "Further, the district court stepping into the shoes of the Legislature by creating and funding government programs designed to address social and health issues goes too far."
The majority said the high court has followed criminal and property-based limitations on the public nuisance law for 100 years.
The dissent writes that he would have reversed the verdict and sent the case back to the trial court for a new award.
"I would remand to the district court to recalculate damages based upon J&J's share of the market in the years it sold its opioids in Oklahoma with its deceptive marketing scheme....,The attorney general's basic theory of the case is tenable, both in law and equity." ...
The only other opioid trial to reach a verdict resulted in an Oklahoma judge in 2019 ordering J&J to pay $465 million to the state. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court just reversed the verdict, finding the trial judge misinterpreted the state’s public nuisance law.
The Attorney General of Oklahoma sued three prescription opioid manufacturers and requested that the district court hold opioid manufacturers liable for violating Oklahoma's public nuisance statute. The State settled with the other opioid manufacturers and eventually dismissed all claims against J&J except public nuisance.
The State presented evidence that J&J used branded and unbranded marketing, which actively promoted the concept that physicians were under treating pain. Ultimately, the State argued J&J overstated the benefits of opioid use, downplayed the dangers, and failed to disclose the lack of evidence supporting long-term use in the interest of increasing J&J's profits.
The district court conducted a 33-day bench trial with the single issue being whether J&J was responsible for creating a public nuisance in the marketing and selling of its opioid products. The district court held J&J liable under Oklahoma's public nuisance statute, and J&J appealed.
The question before the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether the conduct of an opioid manufacturer in marketing and selling its products constituted a public nuisance
In a 5-1 ruling, the high court held that the district court's expansion of public nuisance law went too far. Oklahoma public nuisance law does not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids.
Writing for the majority, Justice James R. Winchester said stopping the opioid crisis is a "laudable goal" but cannot be done by "reshaping" the public nuisance law that has traditionally been used to address "discrete, localized" problems.
"The district court's expansion of public nuisance law allows courts to manage public policy matters that should be dealt with by the legislative and executive branches; the branches that are more capable than courts to balance the competing interests at play in societal problems," Winchester wrote. "Further, the district court stepping into the shoes of the Legislature by creating and funding government programs designed to address social and health issues goes too far."
The majority said the high court has followed criminal and property-based limitations on the public nuisance law for 100 years.
The dissent writes that he would have reversed the verdict and sent the case back to the trial court for a new award.
"I would remand to the district court to recalculate damages based upon J&J's share of the market in the years it sold its opioids in Oklahoma with its deceptive marketing scheme....,The attorney general's basic theory of the case is tenable, both in law and equity." ...
A month ago the coronavirus seemed headed for a long winter’s nap in masked and well-vaccinated California. Gov. Gavin Newsom boasted that the Golden State "continues to lead the nation" as the only state to reach the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s yellow "moderate" tier of community virus transmission.
But the Mercury News reports that COVID-19 cases aren’t falling in California anymore. They have climbed back up to the CDC’s blood-red "high" level of virus transmission as the highly contagious Delta variant continues to wreak havoc.
"There are early indications that the decline in the Delta surge at the national level in the U.S. has ended," said Ali H. Mokdad, professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington, which runs a widely followed model projecting the course of the pandemic. Currently, 19 states have increasing transmission, including several like California "that had previously appeared to have been declining."
And while much of the Golden State’s current coronavirus woes are driven by virus spread in the less-vaccinated and restricted inland counties, the Bay Area hasn’t been immune. Most Bay Area counties that hoped to reach the yellow moderate level by now remain stubbornly stuck in orange. Marin and Santa Cruz counties, which had reached the yellow level, are back up to orange. San Francisco is the only county in yellow.
So why aren’t Golden Staters reaping more reward for their adherence to health guidance?
"You’re paying for your success, which is weird," Mokdad said. "You succeed in controlling the virus, and now you’re having infections."
But he and other health experts say it’s not because the health guidance isn’t sound. Outbreaks burn out once the virus runs out of enough new people without immunity to infect. And people can gain immunity both from infection recovery and vaccines.
With higher vaccination levels than in the Southeast, California saw a smaller wave of cases over the summer as the Delta variant ripped through the country, mostly infecting those who hadn’t been vaccinated. Now that they’ve recovered, they have immunity too, cutting off avenues for the virus to spread.
"These regions are now being partly protected by high prior infection rates," said Dr. Bob Wachter, chair of the medical department at the University of California-San Francisco. "But these people whose immunity comes from COVID are not very well protected, and their immunity will wane with time."
States in the Southeast hammered with big summer case surges now are faring better simply because, with their combination of vaccinations and infections, they have fewer left who are susceptible to the virus than in California, Mokdad said. But "they got there at a heavy price."
Other factors also are in play. The Southeast’s hot, humid summers drive people to the air-conditioned indoors where the virus spreads easily, while Californians enjoy moderate weather out in the surf and sand. But the autumn chill is now bringing Californians inside, too ...
But the Mercury News reports that COVID-19 cases aren’t falling in California anymore. They have climbed back up to the CDC’s blood-red "high" level of virus transmission as the highly contagious Delta variant continues to wreak havoc.
"There are early indications that the decline in the Delta surge at the national level in the U.S. has ended," said Ali H. Mokdad, professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington, which runs a widely followed model projecting the course of the pandemic. Currently, 19 states have increasing transmission, including several like California "that had previously appeared to have been declining."
And while much of the Golden State’s current coronavirus woes are driven by virus spread in the less-vaccinated and restricted inland counties, the Bay Area hasn’t been immune. Most Bay Area counties that hoped to reach the yellow moderate level by now remain stubbornly stuck in orange. Marin and Santa Cruz counties, which had reached the yellow level, are back up to orange. San Francisco is the only county in yellow.
So why aren’t Golden Staters reaping more reward for their adherence to health guidance?
"You’re paying for your success, which is weird," Mokdad said. "You succeed in controlling the virus, and now you’re having infections."
But he and other health experts say it’s not because the health guidance isn’t sound. Outbreaks burn out once the virus runs out of enough new people without immunity to infect. And people can gain immunity both from infection recovery and vaccines.
With higher vaccination levels than in the Southeast, California saw a smaller wave of cases over the summer as the Delta variant ripped through the country, mostly infecting those who hadn’t been vaccinated. Now that they’ve recovered, they have immunity too, cutting off avenues for the virus to spread.
"These regions are now being partly protected by high prior infection rates," said Dr. Bob Wachter, chair of the medical department at the University of California-San Francisco. "But these people whose immunity comes from COVID are not very well protected, and their immunity will wane with time."
States in the Southeast hammered with big summer case surges now are faring better simply because, with their combination of vaccinations and infections, they have fewer left who are susceptible to the virus than in California, Mokdad said. But "they got there at a heavy price."
Other factors also are in play. The Southeast’s hot, humid summers drive people to the air-conditioned indoors where the virus spreads easily, while Californians enjoy moderate weather out in the surf and sand. But the autumn chill is now bringing Californians inside, too ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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.
...
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.
...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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." ...
"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." ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
An Orange County Superior Court Judge ruled late Monday that four drug companies can't be held liable for that state's opioid epidemic. Communities had hoped for tens of billions of dollars in compensation to help ease the addiction crisis.
It marked the first trial win for any drug companies in the more than 3,300 lawsuits filed by states and local governments over a drug abuse crisis that the U.S. government says led to nearly 500,000 opioid overdose deaths over two decades.
Attorneys representing four California counties argued the drug companies used false and misleading marketing to push up the sale of prescription opioids. The Sixth Amended Complaint asserted causes of action for False Advertising , Unfair Competition and Public Nuisance against the companies. The companies denied any wrongdoing.
Phase I of this case regarding liability was tried to the Court between April 19, 2021 and July 27, 2021 . No party requested trial by jury on any claim or issue. The entire trial was conducted remotely, via the Zoom platform. All parties rested on July 27, 2021. The Court set a briefing schedule for closing briefs, and closing arguments were heard on September 30, 2021 and October 1, 2021.
In his 41-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson said it was unclear the drug industry's marketing efforts led to directly to a rise in illegal use of prescription opioid painkillers.
He also acknowledged that his Court is aware of the toll being taken on society by what has been variously referred to as the "opioid crisis" or the "opioid epidemic" and that the defendants do not dispute that there is an opioid crisis.
However he noted that "the California Legislature has approved, and continues to approve, the availability of opioid medications, through prescriptions, by passing the laws described" in the opinion.
The ruling went on to say "As the Historical and Statutory Notes to Business & Professions Code section 2241.5 state, "it is the intent of the Legislature to encourage physicians to provide adequate pain management to patients in California consistent with Section 2241.5." And the California Legislature made clear its intention to expand, rather than restrict, the appropriate prescribing of opioid medications."
"In addition to its relevance to proof of the "unreasonableness" element of a public nuisance claim as discussed above, the absence of evidence concerning medically inappropriate prescriptions also breaks the chain of causation between Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct and the harms complained of."
The ruling reviewed documents presented during the trial against each defendant in great detail, and concluded that none of the identified statements, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, to be false or misleading. An allegedly false or misleading statement in an internal company document, that was in no way published or disseminated before the public, would not qualify as "false advertising" under the statute or applicable cases.
The ruling concludes that "There will accordingly be judgment for Defendants on all claims."
The ruling came as J&J and the three largest U.S. drug distributors - McKesson Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and AmersourceBergen -- work to finalize a proposed deal to pay up to $26 billion to settle the thousands of cases against them. And a bankruptcy judge in August approved a settlement by OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and its wealthy Sackler family owners of the claims against them that the company values at more than $10 billion.
In a statement, the lead lawyers overseeing related federal lawsuits against the companies -- Jayne Conroy, Paul Farrell and Joe Rice -- said they strongly disagreed with the ruling and stressed that it did not impact related cases nationally.
The only other opioid trial to reach a verdict resulted in an Oklahoma judge in 2019 ordering J&J to pay $465 million to the state. J&J is appealing that decision.
Trials are currently underway a New York case against Teva and AbbVie and in Ohio against three pharmacy chain operators. A West Virginia federal judge recently finished hearing evidence in a trial involving the distributors ...
It marked the first trial win for any drug companies in the more than 3,300 lawsuits filed by states and local governments over a drug abuse crisis that the U.S. government says led to nearly 500,000 opioid overdose deaths over two decades.
Attorneys representing four California counties argued the drug companies used false and misleading marketing to push up the sale of prescription opioids. The Sixth Amended Complaint asserted causes of action for False Advertising , Unfair Competition and Public Nuisance against the companies. The companies denied any wrongdoing.
Phase I of this case regarding liability was tried to the Court between April 19, 2021 and July 27, 2021 . No party requested trial by jury on any claim or issue. The entire trial was conducted remotely, via the Zoom platform. All parties rested on July 27, 2021. The Court set a briefing schedule for closing briefs, and closing arguments were heard on September 30, 2021 and October 1, 2021.
In his 41-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson said it was unclear the drug industry's marketing efforts led to directly to a rise in illegal use of prescription opioid painkillers.
He also acknowledged that his Court is aware of the toll being taken on society by what has been variously referred to as the "opioid crisis" or the "opioid epidemic" and that the defendants do not dispute that there is an opioid crisis.
However he noted that "the California Legislature has approved, and continues to approve, the availability of opioid medications, through prescriptions, by passing the laws described" in the opinion.
The ruling went on to say "As the Historical and Statutory Notes to Business & Professions Code section 2241.5 state, "it is the intent of the Legislature to encourage physicians to provide adequate pain management to patients in California consistent with Section 2241.5." And the California Legislature made clear its intention to expand, rather than restrict, the appropriate prescribing of opioid medications."
"In addition to its relevance to proof of the "unreasonableness" element of a public nuisance claim as discussed above, the absence of evidence concerning medically inappropriate prescriptions also breaks the chain of causation between Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct and the harms complained of."
The ruling reviewed documents presented during the trial against each defendant in great detail, and concluded that none of the identified statements, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, to be false or misleading. An allegedly false or misleading statement in an internal company document, that was in no way published or disseminated before the public, would not qualify as "false advertising" under the statute or applicable cases.
The ruling concludes that "There will accordingly be judgment for Defendants on all claims."
The ruling came as J&J and the three largest U.S. drug distributors - McKesson Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and AmersourceBergen -- work to finalize a proposed deal to pay up to $26 billion to settle the thousands of cases against them. And a bankruptcy judge in August approved a settlement by OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and its wealthy Sackler family owners of the claims against them that the company values at more than $10 billion.
In a statement, the lead lawyers overseeing related federal lawsuits against the companies -- Jayne Conroy, Paul Farrell and Joe Rice -- said they strongly disagreed with the ruling and stressed that it did not impact related cases nationally.
The only other opioid trial to reach a verdict resulted in an Oklahoma judge in 2019 ordering J&J to pay $465 million to the state. J&J is appealing that decision.
Trials are currently underway a New York case against Teva and AbbVie and in Ohio against three pharmacy chain operators. A West Virginia federal judge recently finished hearing evidence in a trial involving the distributors ...
While the vast majority of employees across most industries and sectors have acquiesced to mandatory vaccine mandates, enough Americans are refusing to get the jab that states and municipalities are losing a dangerous game of chicken with employees who refuse.
On Saturday, the New York Post reported that 26 New York fire companies have been shuttered citywide due to staff shortages caused by the Covid-19 vaccine mandate.
The stunning lockdown came amid a pitched battle between City Hall, which will start enforcing a mandate Monday that all workers have at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine - and jab-resisting fire fighters, many reportedly saying they were already sick with the coronavirus and therefore have "natural immunity."
Across the Rockies, Los Angeles Country Sheriff Alex Villanueva has warned of an "imminent threat to public safety" caused by a "mass exodus" of thousands of deputies and civilian personnel who refuse to take the jab. "I could potentially lose 44% of my workforce in one day," he wrote in a Thursday open letter to the Board of Supervisors, adding that he can't enforce "reckless mandates that put public safety at risk."
The Sheriff’s Department - the largest in the country - employs approximately 18,000 people. About half are sworn deputies.
Meanwhile in Arizona, a Tucson Water employee claims the department is 'losing staff' over the mandate. "We are watching employees walk out as I speak in the water quality and operations division," reports KOLD13. "We’re pulling people from other areas and other departments to help specifically cover the operations division which is overseeing the water quality and drinking water parameters," the whistleblower added.
And American Airlines cancellations are disrupting transportation. The company scrubbed more than 1,900 flights over the weekend, Company officials deny that the problem is related to a protest of the vaccine mandate. However, its phenomena is so similar to the massive cancellation Southwest had just a few months ago, as to raise questions about the cause.
The Chicago Fraternal Order of Police won a small victory in its fight against a city employee Covid-19 vaccine mandate on Monday when a county judge temporarily lifted the mandate's requirement that all police be fully vaccinated or have a valid exemption by Dec. 31.
Cook County Judge Raymond Mitchell's order still allows the city to put officers who refuse to report whether they are vaccinated on no-pay status, but it prevents the city from disciplining police who are not fully vaccinated or exempt by the end of the year ...
On Saturday, the New York Post reported that 26 New York fire companies have been shuttered citywide due to staff shortages caused by the Covid-19 vaccine mandate.
The stunning lockdown came amid a pitched battle between City Hall, which will start enforcing a mandate Monday that all workers have at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine - and jab-resisting fire fighters, many reportedly saying they were already sick with the coronavirus and therefore have "natural immunity."
Across the Rockies, Los Angeles Country Sheriff Alex Villanueva has warned of an "imminent threat to public safety" caused by a "mass exodus" of thousands of deputies and civilian personnel who refuse to take the jab. "I could potentially lose 44% of my workforce in one day," he wrote in a Thursday open letter to the Board of Supervisors, adding that he can't enforce "reckless mandates that put public safety at risk."
The Sheriff’s Department - the largest in the country - employs approximately 18,000 people. About half are sworn deputies.
Meanwhile in Arizona, a Tucson Water employee claims the department is 'losing staff' over the mandate. "We are watching employees walk out as I speak in the water quality and operations division," reports KOLD13. "We’re pulling people from other areas and other departments to help specifically cover the operations division which is overseeing the water quality and drinking water parameters," the whistleblower added.
And American Airlines cancellations are disrupting transportation. The company scrubbed more than 1,900 flights over the weekend, Company officials deny that the problem is related to a protest of the vaccine mandate. However, its phenomena is so similar to the massive cancellation Southwest had just a few months ago, as to raise questions about the cause.
The Chicago Fraternal Order of Police won a small victory in its fight against a city employee Covid-19 vaccine mandate on Monday when a county judge temporarily lifted the mandate's requirement that all police be fully vaccinated or have a valid exemption by Dec. 31.
Cook County Judge Raymond Mitchell's order still allows the city to put officers who refuse to report whether they are vaccinated on no-pay status, but it prevents the city from disciplining police who are not fully vaccinated or exempt by the end of the year ...
