OSHA Returns: Employers May Be Liable For ‘Any Adverse Reaction’ From Mandated Vaccinations
Primary tabs
English
'OSHA should have shut down employer-mandated face masks as a safety and health risk, but did not. Now it releases a blockbuster statement that employers who mandate experimental gene therapy shots will be liable for harm caused. ⁃ TN Editor'
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has put employers on notice that should they attempt to require employees to receive injections of experimental COVID-19 gene-therapy vaccines a resulting adverse reaction will be considered “work-related” for which the employer may be held liable.
OSHA released its new guidance on April 20 under a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website having to do with COVID-19 safety compliance.
The question asks whether an employer who mandates employees receive these experimental COVID-19 shots is required to record any adverse events as a result of these injections. Such recording requirements of serious work-related injuries and illness may not only leave an employer vulnerable to worker’s compensation claims, but such incidents could also impact the employer’s safety record.
The question and answer in full:
If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?
If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.
This clarification comes as an increasing number of employers seek to mandate the experimental injections despite possible illegality. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported this beginning trend in varieties of fields, including machine operators, office workers, restaurant waiters, and medical staff.
“The Houston Methodist Hospital network is mandating vaccines for both existing employees and new hires, barring an exemption,” Chip Cutter of the WSJ wrote. “Those who fail to comply will at first be suspended without pay, and later terminated.”
Under the new OSHA clarification, such employers may be held liable for injuries due to these requirements."
While the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields pharmaceutical manufacturers from any liability due to injuries or death caused by their products (which many Americans have said is significantly problematic in itself), scenarios such as these could still leave employers who mandate these injections liable for significant damages.
Source: https://www.technocracy.news/osha-returns-employers-may-be-liable-for-any-adverse-reaction-from-mandated-vaccinations/
May17 , 2021
Furthermore, it’s also possible employers requiring these injections may be held legally liable for violating federal law. According to America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), products approved for emergency use only “are prohibited from being mandated by federal law.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization (EUA) specifically states that individuals must have the free “option to accept or refuse” these vaccines. Many argue the prospect of being terminated from one’s job by refusing such vaccines certainly undermines such necessary freedom.
Therefore, attorneys Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense, and Greg Glaser warned last January that employers and universities who seek to defy the EUA law and attempt to require such injections of employees and students “are likely to lose if challenged in court.”
In order to assist individuals who wish to challenge their employers, schools, or universities that are requiring experimental COVID-19 vaccine injections, AFLDS has provided a template letterthat can be sent to these entities and persons putting them on notice of their legal vulnerability.
“The law is clear. An experimental vaccine cannot be mandated,” the introduction reads. And the text, drafted in the second person to the mandating authority, states, “Any employer, public school, or any other entity or person who mandates experimental vaccines on any human being is not protected from liability for any resulting harm. While vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability, your institution is not protected, and neither are you.”
The Informed Consent Action Network’s legal team is also offering help to individuals in this difficult position. More information can be found here.
Source:https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/employers-may-be-liable-for-any-adverse-reaction-from-mandated-coronavirus-shots-osha
May10, 2021
Businesses are Not Shielded from Liability with Experimental Agents
Employers are not shielded from liability like pharmaceutical companies when it comes to an experimental agent. In 2005, Congress enacted the PREP Act. The PREP Act authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration in response to a public health emergency. “On March 10, 2020 the Secretary of HHS made a public health emergency declaration for COVID-19, which makes the PREP Act’s protections applicable to the COVID-19 pandemic.”10 A PREP Act declaration provides immunity from tort liability claims (except willful misconduct) to individuals or organizations involved in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of medical countermeasures. Although pharmaceutical companies are not liable (unless willful misconduct), the PREP Act does not shield employers or businesses as “covered persons” and should they attempt to mandate vaccination, they may be liable for resulting harm.” The Covid-19 vaccines are emergency use products, and as such, as not fully licensed, the law is clear: States may not mandate the vaccines, and private entities may do so only at the peril of violating federal law.11
The fact pattern in today’s potential mandates for COVID-19 experimental vaccines violates four levels of the law: Constitution -rational basis, Constitution -strict scrutiny, legislative and international law, and is therefore illegal.
1. Rational Basis: By CDC data, COVID-19 is not a deadly threat (comparable to smallpox) to the general population. The vaccine candidates are not FDA-approved. They have not yet been demonstrated to be safe (too early in the investigational phase) nor effective (not shown to reduce transmission of the virus, reduce hospitalization, reduce death). Thus there is no rational basis that supersedes individual liberty.
2. Strict Scrutiny: Over the past 100 years, the Constitutional doctrine of strict scrutiny applies to any law that interferes with a person’s fundamental rights of individual liberty, including: bodily integrity, reproductive rights, and procreation. All three of these rights are implicated by the experimental vaccines.
3. Legislative: COVID-19 agents are currently investigational only, with the earliest possible date of full approval being late 2022 or early 2023. Investigational agents can never be mandated as there is an absolute right of refusal regarding experimental treatment codified in 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-390. This is codified into federal law Title 45 CFR part 46 and by fourteen federal agencies and is used in all Institutional Review Boards by hospitals, clinics and medical journals.91 In August 2020, the CDC specifically affirmed that the experimental vaccine candidates for COVID-19 can never be mandated.92
4. International Law: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) prohibit mandated experimental treatment and require informed consent. These principles are stated in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)93 and by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, an international consortium with the CIOMS Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research.
Other Key Words:
- Corpop's blog
- Log in or register to post comments