User:BD2412/Vaccine law resources/Access

City of S.F. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (9th Cir. 2019)
2. Public-Health Concerns

The Northern District of California also found that DHS did not sufficiently respond to certain public-health concerns. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 2019 WL 5100718, at *35-37. Specifically, the court worried that by disenrolling from public-health benefits like Medicaid, people may forgo vaccinations, which could [Page 66] have serious public-health consequences. Id. The district court also pointed out that the 1999 Field Guidance declined to define "public charge" to include receipt of "health and nutrition benefits" out of fear of possible public-health ramifications. Id. at *37 (citing 64 Fed. Reg. at 28,692).

DHS not only addressed these concerns directly, it changed its Final Rule in response to the comments. 84 Fed. Reg. at 41,297. With respect to vaccines, DHS stated that it "does not intend to restrict the access of vaccines for children or adults or intend to discourage individuals form obtaining the necessary vaccines to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases." Id. at 41,384. The Final Rule "does not consider receipt of Medicaid by a child under age 21, or during a person's pregnancy, to constitute receipt of public benefits." DHS said that would address "a substantial portion, though not all, of the vaccinations issue." Id. Accordingly, DHS "believes that vaccines would still be available for children and adults even if they disenroll from Medicaid." Id. at 41,385.

Bloomberg quote
"When the parents of an immigrant child forego vaccination for fear of being reported to the federal immigration authorities, we all lose..." Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Signs Executive Order 41 Regarding City Services For Immigrants (Sept. 17, 2003), available at https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/262-03/mayor-michael-bloomberg-signs-executive-order-41-city-services-immigrants. Quoted in New York v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (2nd Cir. 2020), n. 38.

Minors

 * Eric Neugeboren, Maryland bill that would’ve allowed minors to consent to vaccination fails Diamondback News (February 20, 2020)
 * "House Bill 0087 — sponsored by Del. Marc Korman (D-Montgomery) — would have required the healthcare provider to deem the minor “mature and capable” to give consent on their own. The bill was cross-filed with Senate Bill 0135".
 * As of 2019, 18 states "have made allowances for mature minors — in some cases as young as 12 years old — to give consent for vaccinations without parental approval".
 * "Under current Maryland law, minors can only consent to vaccinations if they are married, a parent themselves or are living apart from their parents or guardians and are financially independent".

Emergency Use Authorizations

 * FDA Emergency Use Authorizations

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine

 * Madeline Holcombe and Joe Sutton, Rural medical center suspended from vaccination program after inoculating school district staff, CNN (January 28, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/28/us/georgia-vaccine-center-suspended-school-district-staff/index.html

Occuvax
Plaintiff, General Healthcare Resources, LLC ("GHR"), alleges three causes of action against Defendant, OccuVAX, LLC ("OccuVAX"): 1) breach of contract, 2) Quantum Meruit/unjust enrichment, and 3) account stated. These counts stem from the two parties' business and contractual relationship under their "Master

Page 2

Service Agreement" contract. ECF No. 3 at 7-9. OccuVAX, in its Answer, denies all three counts, while bringing forth counterclaims alleging breach of contract, negligence, and negligent hiring/supervision (Counterclaims I, II, and III, respectively) against GHR. ECF No. 16 at 11-17.

GHR is a healthcare staffing agency that provides clients with professional staffing services. ECF No. 3 at ¶ 3. OccuVAX sets up on-site vaccination clinics for its customers and provides the licensed healthcare professionals required to administer vaccines. Id. at ¶ 4. GHR and OccuVAX entered into a contract (the "Master Service Agreement") for GHR to "identify and provide AGENCY PROFESSIONALS who are qualified" to administer vaccines at flu vaccination clinics set up by OccuVAX. ECF No. 16, Ex. A. "GHR employed, hired, contracted with, supervised, controlled and/or managed the individuals designed to administer flu vaccines pursuant to the Master Service Agreement." ECF No. 16 at 11, ¶ 10. OccuVAX claims it provided GHR with advance notice of all clinics that needed to be staffed in accordance with the terms of the Master Service Agreement. Id. at 11, ¶ 14.

In its Counterclaim, OccuVAX first alleges that GHR failed to staff scheduled clinics with healthcare professionals in violation of the Master Service Agreement, despite having advanced notice of the scheduled clinics. Id. at 11, ¶ 16. OccuVAX alleges that this breach of contract resulted in the rescheduling and

Page 3

cancellation of clinics and caused OccuVAX to lose customers.1 Id. at 12, ¶¶ 21-24.

Second, OccuVAX alleges that GHR was negligent when it failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of the Master Service Agreement. Id. at 15, ¶ 34. Specifically, OccuVAX alleges that GHR failed to maintain an accurate staffing schedule for OccuVAX's clinics, ignored communication from OccuVAX regarding staffing of clinics, and failed to adequately communicate about its alleged inability to staff clinics. Id. at 15, ¶¶ 36-38. OccuVAX asserts that, as a result of GHR's alleged negligence, it sustained damages totaling $2,902,448.00 for lost business, $178,841.00 for additional costs it incurred in attempts to staff clinics that GHR allegedly failed to staff, and the cost of vaccines and supplies that were not used due to the cancellation of clinics caused by GHR's alleged negligence. Id. at 16, ¶ 43.

Third, OccuVAX alleges negligent hiring/supervision against GHR because its customers reported that nurses provided by GHR failed to exercise reasonable care in the administration of vaccines during clinics. Id. at 17, ¶¶ 44, 46. Specifically, OccuVAX alleges that the GHR-provided nurses and medical professionals failed to wear gloves, acted unprofessionally, failed to comply with

Page 4

training programs, administered flu vaccines without swabbing the arm with alcohol, administered expired flu shots, and were generally unprepared. Id. at 17, ¶ 47. OccuVAX states it reported this allegedly negligent and unprofessional behavior to GHR but GHR continued to staff OccuVAX's clinics with the same nurses. Id. at 18, ¶ 51. OccuVAX claims the allegedly negligent hiring/supervision by GHR caused it to lose business and incur additional costs associated with cancelled/rescheduled clinics in the same amount as stated for Counterclaim II. Id. at 19, ¶¶ 53-54. Gen. Healthcare Res., LLC v. OccuVAX, LLC (E.D. Pa. 2019)

...

In the present case, the duties alleged in Counts II and III of OccuVAX's Counterclaim arise under the Master Service Agreement between the

Page 8

parties. See ECF No. 3, Ex. A. In Count II of their Counterclaim, OccuVAX sets forth a claim of negligence, alleging that GHR failed to exercise reasonable care in scheduling nurses or medical professionals for OccuVAX's clinics, or maintaining updated schedules and staffing information. See id. Further, like the plaintiffs in both Downs and KBZ Communications Inc., GHR's duty to OccuVAX to schedule staff for clinics or maintain updated schedules arises from the Master Service Agreement agreed upon by the parties. See id. Like the agreement in Downs and KBZ Communications Inc., the Master Service Agreement, here, governs GHR's duty to provide adequate services to OccuVAX. See id. Similar to the claims in Downs and KBZ Communications Inc., Count II of OccuVAX's Counterclaim must be dismissed under the gist of the action doctrine and economic loss doctrine. See id.

In Count III of OccuVAX's Counterclaim, OccuVAX sets forth a claim of negligent hiring and supervision, alleging that GHR knew or should have known that nurses and other medical professionals were not performing their duties with reasonable care. See ECF No. 3, Ex. A. Like in Count II, GHR's duty to OccuVAX to adequately supervise their staff at clinics arises solely from the Master Service Agreement entered into by the parties.4 See id. Further, like the

Page 9

plaintiffs in both Downs and KBZ Communications Inc., GHR has no greater societal duty to OccuVAX to supervise their staff, other than that created by the Master Service Agreement. See id. OccuVAX's Counterclaim primarily arises from GHR's alleged failure to provide services agreed to under the Master Service Agreement, and not a separate tort theory. See id. Gen. Healthcare Res., LLC v. OccuVAX, LLC (E.D. Pa. 2019)