Tag: 2021 News

On August 4th, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors issued an executive order mandating all County employees provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19, or face potential termination. L.A. County awarded a no-bid contract to Fulgent Genetics Corporation to provide testing/registration services.

Fulgent Genetics was also awarded a contract to provide COVID-19 testing for New York City public schools through the 2021 school year.

However, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has notified the LA County Board of Supervisors that LASD will not work with a China-linked genetics firm hired by the county to conduct Covid-19 testing and registration, after the FBI shared “very concerning information” about Fulgent Genetics Corporation – which was awarded a no-bid contract for the work.

“This letter is to inform you the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) will not participate in COVID-19 registering or testing with Fulgent Genetics Corporation (Fulgent), due to the fact the DNA data obtained is not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments and “will likely be shared with the Republic of China,”” wrote Sheriff Alex Villanueva in a Monday letter.

Villanueva writes that on Nov. 24 he was contacted by the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator, who shared “very concerning information” about Fulgent.

“I was shocked to learn Fulgent had strong ties with BGl2, WuXi3, and Huawei Technology 4 , all of which are linked to the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) State Council and are under the control of the PRC.” the letter continues. “I was even more shocked to learn Fulgent made no attempt to disguise the fact they will use the genetic information obtained in future studies.“

Villanueva claimed DNA data obtained through tests are “not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments” and said FBI officials advised him at the briefing that genetic information the company collects is likely to be shared with the Chinese government. Fulgent Genetics, he alleged in the letter, has “strong ties” with Chinese technology and genomics companies, but he did not elaborate on what those ties are.

Villanueva then blasted officials over how Fulgent was hired in the first place, writing “I am deeply concerned as to the vetting process which either failed to discover this, or discovered it, but chose to ignore it. A simple internet search would have uncovered all of the above facts.”

“Entering into a no-bid contract with Fulgent Genetics and allowing them to have the DNA data obtained from mandatory COVID-19 testing, for unknown purposes, has shattered all confidence my personnel have in this entire process under the County mandate. Many personnel have long suspected this information was being used in an unnecessary manner due to a rushed mandate that we now know will have long-term unintended consequences that will not be fully known for some time.

Villanueva also noted that the “FBI felt strongly enough regarding Fulgent being used to test County personnel that they held an emergency briefing to disclose their concerns.”

Villanueva said the county’s top attorney and chief executive also attended the recent FBI briefing at the agency’s Los Angeles office. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when asked to confirm what was discussed at the meeting.

Fulgent’s chief commercial officer, Brandon Perthuis, dismissed the sheriff’s allegations as untrue. In a statement Tuesday, Perthuis wrote that the U.S.-based company was founded and is led by American citizens. He said the company does not share personal data about people who are tested with the Chinese government and that the company does not use samples collected during tests to sequence people’s unique DNA structure.

County employees are required to register their vaccination status with Fulgent, and those who are not vaccinated are required to submit to regular testing. Villanueva said the Sheriff’s Department would use its own registration system and work with vetted testing companies that are not associated with Fulgent.

The founder Fulgent Genetics is billionaire Ming Hsieh, who was born in China but is now a naturalized American citizen.

Of note, China’s ambitions to build the world’s largest DNA database are no secret to anyone listening to CBS News (60 Minutes), or the Wall Street Journal.

This Monday, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a preliminary injunction on the mandate, which requires health-workers to be vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022.

This case concerns the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) federal vaccine mandate on a wide range of healthcare facilities. Specifically, the mandate requires nearly every employee, volunteer, and third-party contractor working at fifteen categories of healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against COVID. and to have received at least a first dose of the vaccine prior to December 6, 2021

On November 10, Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire filed a Complaint challenging the mandate. They subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate.

In granting the motion, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Congress has not provided CMS the authority to enact the regulation at issue here. “[A]n agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”

The Court agrees Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services general authority to enact regulations for the “administration” of Medicare and Medicaid and the “health and safety” of recipients. But the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress – and Congress has provided none. “It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened.”.

Even if CMS has the authority to implement the vaccine mandate the mandate is likely an unlawful promulgation of regulations. Both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Social Security Act ordinarily require notice and a comment period before a rule like this one takes effect. CMS concedes it did not follow these requirements but attempts to justify its omission under the “good cause” exception. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,583. Here, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that CMS unlawfully bypassed the APA’s notice and comment requirements.

Use of the “good cause” exception is “limited to emergency situations” and is “necessarily fact-or context-dependent.” Here, CMS’s delay in requiring mandatory vaccination undermines its contention that COVID is an emergency such that it has the “good cause” necessary to dispense with notice and comment requirements.

Finally, the court noted that “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the CMS vaccine mandate is arbitrary or capricious.” …. “In general, the overwhelming lack of evidence likely shows CMS had insufficient evidence to mandate vaccination on the wide range of facilities that it did.” Another example, “CMS rejected daily or weekly testing – an option that even OSHA approved in its ETS – without citing any evidence for such a conclusion.”

While the preliminary injunction applies only in the states that are Plaintiffs in this action, multiple news sources say White House is telling federal agencies they can hold off on suspending or firing federal workers for not complying with the vaccine mandate until after the holidays, according to a memo obtained by ABC News.

Detroit’s three big automakers – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis – announced that they are not yet mandating vaccines for thousands of their unionized workers.

The UAW has resisted suggestions it agree to vaccine mandates. Last September, UAW President Ray Curry told its members that until the various rules are finalized, the UAW’s bargaining position continues to be that vaccination is strongly encouraged, but a personal choice.”

Biden has worked hard to win the autoworkers’ support, in part because UAW members are crucial to winning elections in Michigan and other Midwestern states. But the UAW’s reluctance to support vaccination mandates reflects a broader resistance among many unions to the Biden administration’s policies.

According to a statement given by the UAW Task Force, they aligned on a policy of voluntary and confidential disclosure of vaccination status for UAW members. Each company will provide additional communication to employees on how, where and when to report their vaccination status.

In addition to encouraging members to disclose their vaccination status, the Task Force continues to urge all members, coworkers, and their families to get vaccinated and get booster vaccinations against COVID-19, while understanding that there are personal reasons that may prevent some members from being vaccinated, such as health issues or religious beliefs.

After reviewing the status of CDC and OSHA guidelines, the Task Force also decided it is in the best interest of worker safety to continue masks in all worksites at this time.

While it is understood that masks can be uncomfortable, the spread of the Delta variant and recent data outlining the continued high rate of transmission in some geographic areas continue to be a serious health threat.

One of the best ways to fight this virus is by getting as many people as possible vaccinated. The more UAW members, coworkers and their families are vaccinated and have boosters, the quicker this deadly pandemic can be vanquished.

The Task Force will continue to closely monitor the COVID health status, and all legal and procedural changes to CDC and OSHA guidelines in order to ensure that everything possible is being done to keep families, members and employees safe.

According to a report by Reuters, Stellantis said it would require all of its 14,000 U.S. salaried non-union employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Jan. 5, as it prepares for a phased reopening of its U.S. offices next year. Nearly 80% of its salaried non-union U.S. workforce self-reported that they are fully vaccinated, Stellantis said.

Earlier this month, Ford said it would require most of its 32,000-strong U.S. salaried workforce to be vaccinated. The second largest U.S. automaker earlier this month said more than 84% of U.S. salaried employees already are vaccinated.

Ford said earlier it was still evaluating its policy for “manufacturing locations, parts depots and Ford Credit, including analyzing federal and collective bargaining requirements.”

GM, Ford and Stellantis said last month they would mandate vaccines for all autoworkers in Canada.

A big question in opiod litigation pertains to how far down the chain of distribution, from the drug manufacturer, the prescribing doctor, to the pharmacy that fills a prescription, can liability be established by plaintiffs seeking payment of the opiod litigation. A new jury verdict this week may help answer that question.

Bloomberglaw reports that a Cleveland jury concluded Walmart Inc., CVS Health Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. helped create a public-health crisis by failing to properly monitor opioid prescriptions, the drug industry’s latest loss in the expanding litigation over the painkillers.

The federal-court panel backed claims by northeast Ohio’s Trumbull and Lake Counties that the pharmacy chains failed to create legally mandated monitoring systems to detect illegitimate opioid prescriptions. The counties are seeking reimbursement for the costs of dealing with addictions and fatal overdoses. Similar suits are pending against drugmakers and distributors. A judge will hear arguments in May about the counties’ compensation claims.

The two Ohio municipalities want the pharmacy owners to pay a combined $2.4 billion to replenish depleted budgets for drug treatment, social services and police, with $1.3 billion for Trumbull and $1.1 billion for Lake, according to people familiar with their demands.

Walmart and other pharmacy operators argued the municipalities couldn’t prove they created a so-called “public nuisance” through lax prescription oversight when the scripts were written by licensed doctors. They also touted their systems designed to help pharmacists track patients’ visits, making it easier to spot red flags among prescriptions.

It’s the first jury verdict in the sprawling, four-year opioid litigation. Municipalities across the nation have accused opioid makers, distributors and sellers of downplaying the painkillers’ addiction risks and sacrificing patient safety for billions in profits. The jurors in Cleveland deliberated for more than five days before returning the unanimous verdict on Tuesday.

“The jury’s decision sounds a bell that should be heard by pharmacy companies around the country,” Mark Lanier, the Ohio counties’ lead lawyer, said after the verdict was announced. “Laws regarding proper monitoring of prescription drugs are be taken seriously and not ignored or downplayed.”

The companies all said they would appeal the verdict. “We look forward to the appeals court review of this case, including the misapplication of public nuisance law,” Mike DeAngelis, a CVS spokesman, said in an emailed statement. “The facts and law do not support the verdict,” Walgreen’s Fraser Engelman added.

“We will appeal this flawed verdict, which is a reflection of a trial that was engineered to favor the plaintiffs’ attorneys and was riddled with remarkable legal and factual mistakes,” Randy Hargrove, a Walmart spokesman, said in an emailed statement.

The outcome of several verdicts in litigation against the makers of the Roundup weed killer are of significance to worker’s compensation administrators who might be involved in CT claims filed b.y agricultural workers. There may, or may not be opportunities for subrogation depending on the eventual trend.

The latest development this month involved an $86.7 million damages award for a Livermore couple stricken with cancer after years of spraying Roundup weed killer. This result will now be final, after the California Supreme Court refused to hear Monsanto’s appeal.

The decision effectively upholds a 2019 jury verdict that found Monsanto was aware of the risks associated with its product and negligently failed to warn consumers, and in so doing also acted with malice, oppression or fraud.

Courthouse news reports that both Alva and Alberta Pilliod were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that they attributed to decades of using Roundup: Alva with systemic diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma in his bones in 2011; Alberta with diagnosed with an aggressive subset of that lymphoma in her brain in 2015.

In addition to $55 million in combined compensatory damages, the jury awarded each of the Pilliods $1 billion in punitive damages. During the course of the five-week trial back May 2019, Alberta testified that she never would have bought the popular herbicide if she had known that it was brought to market based on approval studies that were found to be invalid.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith ultimately slashed the award to a total of $86.7 million, and an appellate court affirmed it in an August order where Justice Marla Miller wrote that “Monsanto’s continuing to sell Roundup after learning that the original approval studies were invalid shows conscious disregard for public health and safety.”

In other Roundup cases, two other Bay Area residents were awarded hefty damages by separate juries. In August 2018, a jury found Monsanto owed Dewayne Lee Johnson $289 million in damages – later reduced by a judge to $78 million – after finding Roundup caused his terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and a federal jury awarded Ed Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages for failing to warn him about the product’s hazards, which a a judge cut down to $20 million.

Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2016, has since appealed the Hardeman case to U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the defendants recently secured a win in Los Angeles state court, where a jury found there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Roundup was a substantial factor in causing the rare cancer that killed a young boy.

A federal judge in Georgia also found in Bayer’s favor on a plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires the company to follow instructions by the EPA not to sell Roundup with a cancer warning on its label. An appeal is pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

In June 2020, Bayer announced a $10 billion agreement to settle a bevy of claims related to Roundup users who have contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But this year, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria refused to approve a $2 billion deal to resolve claims from Roundup users who have not developed cancer but may be diagnosed in the future.

Bayer has also vowed to remove glyphosate-based products from retail store shelves by 2023 to prevent future litigation, though the company has consistently said that it stands behind Roundup’s safety.