The Court stayed injunctions issued by two lower courts, finding that the vaccine requirement for healthcare workers was a proper exercise of the Secretary of Health and Human Service’s statutory authority to issue rules that he “finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services” under 42 U. S. C. §1395x(e)(9). Further, the agency had demonstrated “good cause” for issuing the final interim rule outside the typically required notice-and-comment period due to anticipation of rising COVID-19 infections during the winter season. The Court also found that the vaccine requirement was not arbitrary and capricious, which was the basis for the lower courts’ issuance of injunctions prohibiting enforcement of the rule.
top of page
Search
Recent Posts
See AllIn an increasingly globalized world, it is extremely important to understand what is involved in enforcing judgments against foreign assets. Given that there is no global system for enforcing a judgme
3430
This is a phrase most litigators have heard, or perhaps said themselves, more than once. This phrase is intended to provoke a reactionary response in your opponent and demonstrate to them, and your cl
1120
On December 22, 2021, the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB) found that medical news company, NetDoktor, violated Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by using Google LLC’s popular
590
bottom of page