The US Supreme Court [SCOTUS] has been asked to review whether the PREP Act [The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e] pre-empts a claim for willful misconduct,
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, September 15, 2022
Thursday, June 30, 2022
Burn Pit Claims: US Supreme Court Allows Veteran to Sue a State Agency for Employment Discrimination
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the US Supreme Court reversed a lower court and remanded the case allowing a veteran to sue the state of Texas. It held under the US Constitution that the States agreed it would yield their sovereignty to the Federal Government to raise and support the Armed Forces.
Wednesday, June 22, 2022
US Supreme Court Holds Washington State’s Workers’ Compensation Law Unconstitutional Under the Supremacy Clause
Washington’s workers’ compensation law discriminates against the Federal Government and its contractors. Because §3172 does not clearly and unambiguously waive the Federal Government’s immunity from discriminatory state laws, Washington’s law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
US Supreme Declines to Review Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Issue
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declined to review the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision prohibiting reimbursement of medical marijuana costs in a workers’ compensation claim. The Petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari conference was denied today. Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center, et al., No. 21-998. Therefore, the individual States will remain the authority on whether reimbursement for medical marijuana will be permitted in a workers' compensation claim.
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
CMS Health Care Workers Vaccination Deadline March 15, 2022
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance that the full vaccination compliance deadline is March 15, 2022, for all health care workers subject to the Omnibus Health Care Staff Vaccination rule.
Saturday, December 18, 2021
OSHA Emergency Temporary COVID Standard Upheld by Federal Court of Appeals
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision staying the Biden Administration’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The split decision (2-1) of the three-judge panel upholds vaccine mandates against COVID infections for places of employment having 100 or more employees.
An appeal to the US Supreme court is anticipated.
Summary
“The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy. Throughout, American employees have been trying to survive financially and hoping to find a way to return to their jobs. Despite access to vaccines and better testing, however, the virus rages on, mutating into different variants, and posing new risks. Recognizing that the “old normal” is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there. In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace. On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS or the standard) to protect the health of employees by mitigating spread of this historically unprecedented virus in the workplace. The ETS requires that employees be vaccinated or wear a protective face covering and take weekly tests but allows employers to choose the policy implementing those requirements that is best suited to their workplace. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS pending judicial review, and it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3), petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit…”
The Emergency Temporary Standard
“The ETS does not require anyone to be vaccinated. Rather, the ETS allows covered employers—employers with 100 or more employees—to determine for themselves how best to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 in their workplaces….. Employers have the option to require unvaccinated workers to wear a mask on the job and test for COVID-19 weekly…. They can also require those workers to do their jobs exclusively from home, and workers who work exclusively outdoors are exempt…. The employer—not OSHA—can require that its workers get vaccinated, something that countless employers across the country have already done…. Employers must also confirm their employees' vaccination status and keep records of that status…. Consistent with other OSHA standard penalties, employers who fail to follow the standard may be fined penalties up to $13,653 for each violation and up to $136,532 for each willful violation. 29 C.F.R. § 1903.15(d). “
Holding
1. OSHA has demonstrated the pervasive danger that COVID-19 poses to workersunvaccinated workers in particularin their workplaces
2. OSHA’s issuance of the ETS is not a transformative expansion of its regulatory power as OSHA has regulated workplace health and safety, including diseases, for decades.
3. There is little likelihood of success for the challenges against OSHA’s bases for issuing the ETS.
4. The factors regarding irreparable injury weigh in favor of the Government and the public interest.
Appeals to US Supreme Court
-BST Holding, LLC filed an Emergency Application for Relief "Whether OSHA’s private-employer mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment"
-IN RE: MCP NO. 165, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, INTERIM FINAL RULE: COVID-19 VACCINATION AND TESTING; EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD 86 FED. REG. 61402, ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 4, 2021
US Supreme Court to hear oral argument on 7 Jan 2022.
Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon L., OSHA Temporary Emergency COVID Standard Upheld by Federal Court of Appeals, Workers' Compensation Blog (Dec. 17, 2021), https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2021/12/osha-temporary-emergency-covid-standard.html
Related Articles
Amazon Settles with California Over Concealment of COVID Data From Warehouse Workers COVID-19 11/17/21
OSHA issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus 11/04/21
Biden Administration Targets Occupational Exposure to PFAS 10/22/21
COVID Boosters: What Employees and Employers Need to Know 10/14/21
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (Thomson-Reuters). For over 5 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Blog: Workers ' Compensation
Twitter: jongelman
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" Thomson-Reuters
Updated 12/23/2021
Friday, August 13, 2021
Justice Barrett denies an injunction against a vaccine mandate
Yesterday evening US Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied a request for a writ of injunction against a vaccine mandate. Students at the University of Indiana [IU] a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the school’s requirement that all students receive a COVID vaccine.
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
A Potential Game-changer for Workers' Compensation
This week’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court [SCOTUS] is a potential game-changer for workers' compensation. SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the National College Athletic Association [NCAA] cannot restrict student-athletes from receiving payment for endorsements.
Friday, July 10, 2020
US Supreme Court Bars Employment Discrimination Claims Against Religious Schools
The US Supreme has held the First Amendment prohibits a court from intervening in employment disputes involving teachers at religious school who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in faith.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
US Supreme Court - NY State Permitted to Close State Fund
The US Supreme Court [SCOTUS] has declined to review the challenge by multiple insurance carriers to the closure of the New York State Insurance Fund. Consistent with a national trend to terminate Second Injury Funds as being obsolete, economically impractical, and no longer warranted, SCOTUS, by declining the Petition for a writ of certiorari, validated the methodology employed by the State of New York to implement the termination of the Fund.
Friday, May 18, 2018
RBG - Equality in the Workplace
Last night I had the opportunity of viewing the newly released movie, RBG .an insightful and inspiring documentary about the awesome career of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
FELA: US Supreme Court to Review Personal Jurisdiction Criteria
The United States Supreme Court will review the merits of a case involving the personal jurisdiction criteria of a FELA case.
"Issue: Whether a state court may decline to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, which held that the due process clause forbids a state court from exercising general personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not at home in the forum state, in a suit against an American defendant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act."
"Issue: Whether a state court may decline to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, which held that the due process clause forbids a state court from exercising general personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not at home in the forum state, in a suit against an American defendant under the Federal Employers' Liability Act."
Monday, July 21, 2014
Justices Find NLRB Recess Appointments Invalid
Today's post was shared by WSJ Law Blog and comes from blogs.wsj.com
 President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in appointing three National Labor Relations Board members during a brief Senate break in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, holding that presidents may only exercise their appointment powers during recesses of 10 or more days. WSJ’s Jess Bravin and Melanie Trottman have a break down of the decision: The decision provides a narrow win for employers who contested the validity of labor board rulings made by the recess appointees. But by a 5-4 vote, the court refused to virtually eliminate the president’s power to fill vacancies when the Senate wasn’t transacting business, as a lower court had done.The case came from a labor dispute involving a Pepsi bottler in Washington State, the Noel Canning unit of Noel Corp., which contested a National Labor Relations Board ruling that it had unlawfully refused execute a collective bargaining agreement with a labor... |
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
US Supreme Court Defines Employment Status
 |
| English: United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., USA. Front facade. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In a split decision the Justices held that, a personal assistant hired under Pennsylvania Medicare, was not considered to be a public employee subject to mandatory union dues deductions like others state employees. The Court reasoned that the personal assistants were subject to the control of the private patients since the patients maintained control b b hiring, firing, training and supervising of the employee.
Harris v Quinn, No. 11-681 (Sp. Ct. 2014), decided June 30, 2014.
Lyle Denniston Reporter for scotus.com reports: "What the Court did do specifically was to draw a legal distinction for now between state and local employees that it will consider to be “full-fledged” public workers and workers who will be treated as something less than that — “partial public employees,” such as the workers in this case — for purposes of union organization. The workers in this case are home health care workers who look after a patient or two in the privacy of a household."
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Medical Device Litigation: Medtronic, Inc. v. Stengel
Issue: Whether the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempt a state-law claim alleging that a medical device manufacturer violated a duty under federal law to report adverse-event information to the Food and Drug Administration.
|
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Supreme Court Rejects Tobacco Companies’ Appeal of Florida Case
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the tobacco industry’s appeal of a Florida ruling that may help thousands of smokers sue cigarette makers over smoking-related illnesses. The nation’s highest court today turned away arguments by Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Vector Group Ltd.’s Liggett unit. They challenged a $2.5 million award to the family of Charlotte Douglas, who died in 2008 of lung cancer at age 62. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to intervene in tobacco litigation in Florida, where more than 4,500 smoker suits are pending. So far, Florida juries have returned verdicts totaling more than $500 million against the industry, the companies said in their appeal. Cigarette makers are seeking to limit the effect of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision, which said a jury’s factual findings against the industry in a class-action case could serve as the starting point for individual suits. The Florida high court reaffirmed that ruling in the Douglas case. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the tobacco companies said they were being deprived of their constitutional right to due process of law. “It is impossible to conclude with any certainty in any of these cases that any jury in any proceeding has ever decided all the elements of the plaintiff’s claims in his or her favor,” the companies contended in their appeal. Douglas’s widower, James,... |
Friday, September 27, 2013
The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case
The post is shared from probulica.org. Betty Dukes talks to the press on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the class action lawsuit Dukes v. Wal-Mart was argued before the court in Washington, March 29, 2011
Employers rejoiced. Others predicted serious setbacks for women and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for their rights on their own. Two years later, it’s becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape. The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as remarkable. Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many instances undoing years of litigation. The rulings have come in every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of companies,... |
Thursday, August 22, 2013
US Supreme Court Asked to Review MSP Preemption Issue
The US Supreme Court has been asked to review a claim on behalf of an injured worker who asserts that the Medicare Secondary Payer Act did not preempt State law (i.e.. Texas) that required a Workers' Compensation claimant to obtain preauthorization from relevant insurance carriers before incurring certain medical expenses. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Medicare's conditional payment for a workers surgeries did not render the state law mandate for preauthorization requirements "moot."
A Writ of Certiorari was filed with the US Supreme Court on Aug. 8, 2012 and a response is due September 11, 2013
Guadalupe Caldera v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, US Supreme Court Docket No. 12-40192. Case below, 716 F 3d 861, Docket No, 12-40192, 5th Cir Ct Appeals, Decided May 14, 2013.
….
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Modern Families and Worker Protections
Until 1993, there was no law that protected workers from having to choose between their jobs and their health – or the welfare of family members who needed their care. The Family and Medical Leave Act changed that, by allowing covered employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without getting fired. This law provided greater protection and flexibility to America’s workers, and the Wage and Hour Division has been proud to uphold it for the past 20 years.But our agency doesn’t just enforce the law. We also provide guidance to employees and employers, to make sure they understand their rights and responsibilities. Earlier this week, the Wage and Hour Division made a few revisions to some of our guidance documents that reflect changes to our enforcement of the FMLA in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor.
These updates remove all references to the Defense of Marriage Act’s provisions that denied federal benefits to legally married, same-sex couples. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision U.S. v. Windsor, the updates clarify the definition of “spouse” for Title I of the FMLA, which applies to covered private-sector employers and any covered public agency. The updated documents can be viewed at these links:
These changes are not regulatory, and they do not fundamentally change the FMLA. They simply recognize that the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision expands the number of employees who...
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
US Supreme Court Upholds Equitable Tolling In Reimbursement Matter
US Supreme Court Upholds Equitable Tolling In Reimbursement Matter
Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, Decided Jan. 22, 2013
Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, Decided Jan. 22, 2013
"But this Court has explained that giving intermediaries more time to discover overpayments than providers have to discover underpayments may be justified by the “administrative realities” of the system: a few dozen fiscal intermediaries are charged with issuing tens of thousands of NPRs, while each provider can concentrate on a single NPR, its own. Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U. S. 449, 455, 456. Pp. 11–14. "
See full analysis on Scotus Blog.
Read more about equitable tolling:
See full analysis on Scotus Blog.
Read more about equitable tolling:
Nov 13, 2012
ERISA health reimbursement claims asserted in Workers' Compensation claims may be subject to equitable relief depending on the upcoming decision in a case pending before the US Supreme Court. Oral argument is ...
Nov 22, 2011
The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation Not Applicable in a Medicare Secondary Payment Reimbursement Claim. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is entitle to ...
Nov 29, 2012
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in defiance of several other circuits held [opinion] that "appropriate equitable relief" did not include revoking the payment to McCutchen. Interestingly enough at oral argument ...
Dec 05, 2011
US Supreme Court Maybe Asked to Rule on CMS Issue: "The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation". The 6th ... The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation Not Applicable in a Medicare Secondary Payment Reimbursement Claim A recent ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)