Joining Peggy Hall are Bill Van Zyverden of Vermont and John Jay Singleton of Florida. Find Peggy's legal documents at the Healthy American's webpage
LIABILITY
17:46 Business owners, because they think it’s
private property, that they can make whatever rules they want. I don’t understand how they believe that it’s
unlimited. Obviously, the rules you
make for operating your store have to comply with the law. Maybe they don’t get proper consultation
advising them of the law.
But really when you’re in that
position, and you want to require someone to undertake a thing, that will
affect his health one way or the other—a medical device, medical intervention—moreover,
I mean that’s why physicians have insurance, because they have to be held
accountable. But imagine someone who
cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician. He’s just a
private property owner, a business owner, employee, so for him to recommend a
medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may
happen from that. You can’t just tell
somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for it,
especially if you’re requiring it, which you really shouldn’t be, if you’re
breaking the law to require it. It’s one
of their big weaknesses; they cannot get insurance for this liability. BTW, let me add just one more thing. On the airlines, here’s a great example, and I
forgot which one it is
If you’re a private property owner
and you tell someone to engage in a medical intervention, you have to the
liability for that. What happens is they
pass out or faint? Does the property
owner have the liability for that?
When you want to require someone to undertake a thing that will affect his health one way or the other, a medical device as medical intervention. Imagine someone who cannot provide informed consent because he’s not a physician, he’s just a private property owner, business owner, an employee, for him to recommend medical intervention, he has to be willing to accept the liability that may happen from that intervention. You can’t just tell somebody to go off and do something and then not be responsible for that. Especially if you’re requiring, you’re breaking the law to require it. They cannot get insurance for this. On the airlines, and this is a great example of this. I think it’s section 205 of title XIV of the CFR, and what it says is the airlines have to provide a certification to the department of transportation, that they have sufficient insurance to carry on their business, and, of course, they have to provide for the safety of the passengers and whomever else, but that pertains to aviation; it doesn’t pertain to medical care. So they can never meet the certification requirements to engage now in the medical testing and everything else they want to do with the medical aspect of it. They have to certify their medical insurance. 19:20.
Some managers and store owners will say in defense of the mask, that if someone in their store catches this disease that the store will be liable. [John is shaking his head.]
20:20 California actually has a law for you to be able to sue someone if they give you a communicable disease. The law came out as a backlash during the AIDS era, and it was designed to create some level of scrutiny for a plaintiff to come forward and say, "Well, my ex-boyfriend gave me AIDS." And the courts and the plaintiff would have to be able to prove that that was the case. And here's the issue: one, you have to know that you have this disease, and how would anyone know they have COVID without any standards for identifying it? Two, you have to willfully seek to transmit it to another person. Didn't realize that people can develop dental and skin problems from wearing a mask. Where does this fit in with an employee who is required to wear a mask? Excellent question.
22:30 The store owner's liability. It's important that we help the store.
The central issue with regard to masks is twofold: one, people should be able to shop for food freely, mask-free and free of harassment from both store owners and their customers. Two, free people have the right to work freely, unemcumbered by masks. Peggy Hall has provided you, me, and everyone else with documents and webpages to press the case on your behalf to secure these rights without reprisal. In this vain, she has posted some legal remedies. For work, your remedy is to contact the OSHA branch in your state and file a workplace safety complaint. She advises you to include the following items in a complaint to OSHA:
1. Masks obstruct your breathing, possibly
bringing it below the OSHA-established levels of oxygen in the atmosphere of
19.5% — thus increasing risk of “IDLH” — Immediate Danger to Life and Health
2. Masks obscure your vision, increasing
the hazard of workplace injuries because of impaired vision.
3. Masks obscure your verbal
communication, increasing the hazard of workplace injuries. Someone might yell,
“Danger” but you could not hear it because of the muffles voice under the mask.
4. Cloth masks increase risk of FIRE
HAZARD, with your face going up in flames.
5. Face Shields increase glare, which can increase risk of vision problems.
6. There is no statutory law or regulation that requires wearing a mask, face covering or face shield, aside from other PPE that might be required in certain industries.
If you are INTIMIDATED or HARASSED by your employer, you can seek legal help with an employment attorney in your own state.
In California, Larry H. Parker law offices will offer a free consultation and if they take your case, you only pay if there is a settlement. 562-427-2044
This is the part that makes me feel helpless, because what's going to happen is that you're going to get released. No employer is going to stop their operations solely on your behalf. None.
Here OSHA answers the question, at least from a legal standpoint, whether surgical masks lower oxygen. Their website states:
No. Medical masks, including surgical masks, are routinely worn by healthcare workers throughout the day as part of their personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles and do not compromise their oxygen levels or cause carbon dioxide buildup. They are designed to be breathed through and can protect against respiratory droplets, which are typically much larger than tiny carbon dioxide particles. Consequently, most carbon dioxide particles will either go through the mask or escape along the mask's loose-fitting perimeter. Some carbon dioxide might collect between the mask and the wearer's face, but not at unsafe levels.
Like medical masks, cloth face coverings are loose-fitting with no seal and are designed to be breathed through. In addition, workers may easily remove their medical masks or cloth face coverings periodically (and when not in close proximity with others) to eliminate any negligible build-up of carbon dioxide that might occur. Cloth face coverings and medical masks can help prevent the spread of potentially infectious respiratory droplets from the wearer to their co-workers, including when the wearer has COVID-19 and does not know it.
Some people have mistakenly claimed that OSHA standards (e.g., the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; the Permit-Required Confined Space standard 29 CFR 1910.146; and the Air Contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000) apply to the issue of oxygen or carbon dioxide levels resulting from the use of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air (e.g. healthcare settings, offices, retail settings, construction). These standards do not apply to the wearing of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air). These standards would only apply to work settings where there are known or suspected sources of chemicals (e.g., manufacturing facilities) or workers are required to enter a potentially dangerous location (e.g., a large tank or vessel).
Is this a case closed type of judgment? I don't think that OSHA is going to concede that surgical masks cause brain damage or dental damage or social isolation.
this is interesting that OSHA addresses retaliation.
RETALIATION
Section 11(c) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 USC 660(c)) prohibits employers from retaliating
against workers for exercising a variety of rights guaranteed under the law,
such as filing a safety or health complaint with OSHA, raising a health and
safety concern with their employers, participating in an OSHA inspection, or
reporting a work-related injury or illness. Additionally, OSHA's Whistleblower
Protection Program enforces the provisions of more than 20
industry-specific federal laws protecting employees from retaliation for
raising or reporting concerns about hazards or violations of various airline,
commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform,
food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline,
public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, securities, and tax laws.
If you
believe you have suffered such retaliation, submit a
complaint to OSHA as soon as possible in order to ensure that
you file the complaint within the legal time limits, some of which may be as
short as 30 days from the date you learned of or experienced retaliation. An
employee can file a complaint with OSHA by visiting or
calling his or her local OSHA office; sending a written complaint via fax,
mail, or email to the closest OSHA office; or filing a complaint online. No
particular form is required and complaints may be submitted in any language.
Visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program
website for more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment