Supreme Courtroom blocks Biden Covid vaccine mandate for companies, permits health-care employee rule

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its comprehensive vaccination or testing requirements for large private companies, but allowed a vaccination mandate for medical facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments.

The verdicts came three days after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency measures for companies went into effect.

The mandate required workers in companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated or present a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace. Also, unvaccinated workers were required to wear masks when working indoors.

“Although Congress has undeniably granted OSHA authority to regulate occupational hazards, it has not conferred that agency authority to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans selected solely because they work for employers with more than 100 employees certainly falls into the latter category,” the court wrote.

A protester holds a “Freedoms & Mandates Don’t Mix” sign in front of the US Supreme Court Friday, January 7, 2022 while discussing two federal vaccination measures in Washington, DC, United States.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed, writing that the majority had usurped power from Congress, the President and OSHA without legal basis.

“With the pandemic still raging, this court is telling the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all required workplaces,” they said in dissent.

“As sickness and death continue to rise, this court is telling the Authority that it cannot respond as effectively as possible. Without a legal basis, the court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undermines the capacity of appropriate federal officials to act well within their authority to protect American workers from serious danger,” they wrote.

President Joe Biden said in a statement the Supreme Court chose to block requirements that are life-saving for workers. Biden called on states and companies to increase and voluntarily implement vaccination requirements to protect workers, customers and the broader community.

“The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the powers granted to it by Congress to require this action, but that does not prevent me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing, to protect the health and economy of Americans,” Biden said.

Labor Secretary Marty Walsh called the court’s decision a major setback to the health and safety of workers and vowed OSHA would use its existing authority to ensure companies protect workers. The American Medical Association, one of the largest medical associations in the country, said it was “deeply disappointed”.

“In the face of an ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic that poses a grave threat to the health of our nation, the Supreme Court today halted one of the most powerful tools in the fight against further transmission and death from this aggressive virus,” the AMA said said President Gerald Harmon.

In a separate ruling released at the same time on the government’s vaccination rules for healthcare workers, a 5-4 majority sided with the Biden administration.

“We agree with the government that the [Health and Human Services] The secretary’s rule falls within the powers conferred on him by Congress,” said the majority, writing that the rule “fits very well with the language of the statute”.

“Finally, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: First, do no harm,” says the majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, four of the six Conservatives on the nine-seat bench, disagreed.

“I don’t think the federal government is likely to show that Congress authorized the unprecedented move to force over 10,000,000 healthcare workers to be vaccinated under threat of dismissal,” Alito wrote in his dissent.

Biden said in a statement that making vaccinations compulsory for healthcare workers will save the lives of patients, doctors and nurses. “We will enforce it,” the president said of the mandate.

OSHA, which oversees workplace safety for the Department of Labor, granted the business mandate under its emergency powers established by Congress. OSHA can cut short the normal rulemaking process, which can take years, when the Secretary of Labor determines that a new occupational safety standard is needed to protect workers from a serious hazard.

CNBC Policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The court’s decision to overturn the business mandate comes as the pandemic rages across the United States and the highly contagious Omicron variant is sparking an unprecedented surge in new infections. The US is reporting an average of 786,000 new infections daily, a pandemic record and a 37% increase from last week, according to CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.

Hospital admissions have also reached a pandemic peak, according to federal data dating back to the summer of 2020. According to a seven-day average of Department of Health and Human Services data, 149,000 Americans are in US hospitals with Covid, a 27% increase. last week.

The vaccination or testing rules have faced a number of lawsuits from 27 states involving Republican attorneys general or governors, private companies, religious groups and national business organizations such as the National Retail Federation, the American Trucking Associations and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The NRF issued a statement calling the Supreme Court ruling a “victory” and calling on the Biden administration to “reject this unlawful mandate and instead work with employers, workers and public health professionals on practical ways to increase immunization rates and contain it.” the spread of the virus in 2022.”

The mandates were the most extensive use of power by the federal government to protect workers from Covid since the pandemic began. Taken together, the Biden administration estimated that the rules for businesses and healthcare workers would apply to about 100 million Americans.

But both rules were in flux long before the Supreme Court adopted them. The OSHA rules were blocked by a conservative federal appeals court in November, then Reinstated weeks later by another court.

The White House at the time urged companies to follow public safety requirements even if they were not enforced.

Some companies have done this, others have introduced their own rules. A number of large employers, including Citigroup, Nike and Columbia Sportswear, have announced plans to lay off unvaccinated workers in recent days.

— CNBC’s Christina Wilkie contributed to this report.

Grammar, Fashion, and the Rule of Legislation in E-Discovery (plus Cheesecake) | Affiliation of Licensed E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS)

I am a big believer in rules. Rules bring order to what could otherwise be chaos. Rules set expectations. Rules guide human behavior (and sometimes non-human behavior). Hell, rules govern how machines compute, perform tasks, and analyze data.

We need rules.

Admittedly, my rebellious side often suggests to me that some rules should be broken. Take the stop sign in front of my house, for example. I often wallow slowly (in both directions, of course), knowing the rule is to stop, even when my wife reminds me that the sign says a stop and I mumble, “Stop signs are only suggestions for” those of us who drive carefully. ”Okay, that’s a bad example, but you get what I’m talking about.

And then some of the rules are pretty fuzzy. Take cheesecake. At home, it’s a rule that nothing goes into the cheesecake except the necessary ingredients. The blissful creaminess, the sweet but sour impression it leaves behind – a good cheesecake doesn’t need anything else. I love strawberries, but it’s a rule not to mess cheesecake (or other toppings or mixes) with them. Those who do this made something other than a cheesecake.

So when my friend and colleague Doug Austin out eDiscovery Today wrote this week The fact that the words “electronic discovery” should be written in short form “eDiscovery” made me think – there has to be a rule for this literal combination of two words. Doug is not the first to suggest this notation. For years it has also been discussed whether the “e” should be separated or not, whether the E should be capitalized or even omitted entirely. It is a fair and reasonable debate. And it’s high up in the pantheon of e-discovery stories with the Tiff versus native productions debate (and we all know who wins that debate, right?).

So in the spirit of trying to solve the industry’s most pressing problems, I set out to solve that problem once and for all. The question, my friends, is e- or not e-.

(Note: there is a minor minor issue with capitalizing E or D, but that’s pretty straightforward).

Since neither Congress nor any other legislative body in the world has, or is likely to have, influence, I have turned to the Chicago Manual of Style. For many, this manual is the Bible for those who work with words. Since it was first published 110 years ago, it has been the indispensable reference work for authors, editors, proofreaders, copywriters and publishers. Since the twelfth edition in 1969, more than a million copies of the manual have been sold. The sixteenth edition was published in 2010 and remains my guide to writing style. There are other manuals, of course, and the rules are very similar, but I think The University of Chicago Press’s is the most widely used.

So let’s dig in. First the simple things.

Rule 1

There should be no question that it is correct to capitalize the “E” when starting a sentence with the word “e-discovery”. Not even the most seditious linguists and mutinous grammarians could disagree. The only possible exception are proper names or brand names.

Rule # 2

Regarding the capital “D” – it is never correct to capitalize a letter in the middle of a word unless that word is a proper name or a private label (e.g. eBay or iPhone).

Based on our first two rules, Doug and eDiscovery Today are clearly given a pass to use the lowercase e and the uppercase D as that is the real name of his blog, his brand. But unfortunately, for the rest of us, based on the rules, we have to start sentences with “e-discovery”, and worse, “eDiscovery,” as sexy as it may seem – I’m sorry, it’s just not correct based on the rules.

Next we need to deal with the slightly more complicated topic – the hyphen. Many of the rules regarding usage and punctuation depend on whether words appear in the dictionary. The most common reference is the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. But while both “electronic” and “Discovery” appear in the dictionary, “E-Discovery” does not appear. If e-discovery were in the dictionary it could solve the problem as people would just look it up and use this form. Since this is not the case, let’s turn to the rules for putting words together.

If we examine it for parts of speech, we can see that “electronic” is an adjective describing the noun “discovery” or adding a grammatical attribute or meaning. In the Chicago Manual of Style, the rule is to separate before but not after the noun. However, this rule applies to the use of both full words. What happens if the composition is one of the so-called “E-words”, which clearly seems to apply here. Think e-commerce, e-book. The best example in the Chicago Manual of Style is “electronic mail” or email. The manual says that we should write e-mails (with a hyphen). I don’t know how or why now, but for the past few years we’ve all been writing “email” (without a hyphen). But the correct form of putting two words together in the “e” world we all live in now is hyphenation (i.e., email).

We’ve all been doing that for many years, as far as I can remember. Somehow we got away from the hyphen. The Associated Press stopped hyphenation of emails in 2011; the New York Times stopped in 2013 (“precisely because of popular demand”). What has changed? Well the only thing I could find actually proves one of the above premises – once a word is published in a dictionary, that usage becomes the norm. And guess what happened between 2010 and 2013? Dictionaries began to publish the word “email” without the hyphen.

I also found a notice on the Oxford Dictionaries website suggesting that “email” (no hyphen) was simply becoming the most common usage. But even the people of Oxford say, “When in doubt, separate.”

What happened to email seems to have happened to many words. We just combined them and made a new word without a hyphen and the new, popular usage took over. But once they’re in a dictionary, it seems more official, doesn’t it?

But I digress. Let’s come back to the penultimate question about e-discovery – the hyphen.

The hyphenation rules in the English language are very different, if not contradicting itself. In many contexts, it probably doesn’t matter that much, and putting words together can be even more complicated. What does the Chicago Manual of Style say?

Rule # 3

The Chicago Manual of Style clearly recommends the use of a hyphen when compounding two words. The reasoning is certainly a little ambiguous, but it is clear from the Style Guide that their Hyphenation Guide for compound words and prefixed words requires hyphenation for compound words preceded by an “e”, except in cases of proper names.

There you have it – the “rules” say “e-discovery” (with a hyphen) is the right use.

See, rules aside, the key to all of these grammar and punctuation marks is clarity. It needs to be clear to the reader what you are writing about. I don’t think anyone will misunderstand what I mean whether I am writing e-discovery or e-discovery, so personally I think it is okay to use both.

But for the sake of rules, I’ll keep writing e-discovery until the word is added to the dictionary.

Oh oh you know what I just discovered that Merriam-Webster already has. Anyone want to guess how they spell it? Listen here.

In August 2009, in response to a debate that was raging through the pages of Law Technology News (the predecessor of Legaltech News), the famous LTN editor Monica Bay published an edict that resonated with me then as now: “No, which remains. “

I’m with Monika. Who wants to argue with that?

Note: This article was written with a healthy dose of sarcasm and humor, a touch of truth, and a touch of sincerity

FDA must OK rule giving seniors entry to FDA-approved medical gadgets underneath Medicare

Mina De La O | Digital vision | Getty Images

Dr. Anand Shah is an oncologist and former FDA Assistant Commissioner and former Chief Medical Officer of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. He is also an advisor to Morgan Stanley.

Navigating public and commercial health insurance to cover innovative medical products can be a never-ending cycle of bureaucracy.

Medical technologies classified as “safe and effective” by the Food and Drug Administration – the global gold standard for regulating drugs and devices – are not always covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, adding the added hurdle for companies Proof of their requirements must be met Product is “reasonable and necessary”.

Unlike medications, which are typically covered by CMS immediately after FDA approval, seniors can only access many FDA cleared or approved medical diagnoses and devices if they can participate in a CMS approved clinical trial. These studies can take years – additional data and a lengthy regulatory process to determine coverage criteria – and in the meantime sustain potentially life-saving medical interventions from Medicare beneficiaries.

A new policy, due to go into effect in mid-March, would have allowed seniors and their doctors to decide whether or not they needed these devices. However, it was postponed along with other pending regulations when the Biden Administration took office. The proposed Medicare Innovative Technologies Coverage Policy, postponed until May 15 for regulatory review, leverages existing FDA legal expertise under the Breakthrough Devices program to identify a limited number of promising medical technologies, and offers these products a short Medicare warranty. granted on the day of FDA approval.

The proposed policy would be a critical step forward for Medicare beneficiaries to make informed decisions about their care.

Currently, the FDA has approved, authorized, or cleared at least 26 breakthrough diagnoses and devices. These medical products include in vitro diagnostic and imaging platforms for implants and wearable devices that cover a range of diseases, including Ebola, traumatic brain injury, severe emphysema, and heart disease.

As an oncologist who helped develop this medical device policy at CMS, I have looked after many patients who have not had access to state-of-the-art tests such as next-generation DNA sequencing as part of a cancer screening because Medicare does not allow them. The same product can often be obtained by the patient through a commercial insurance policy, which many do not get under the Medicare program after aging. As a last resort, the patient has no choice but to pay out of pocket.

Seniors deserve access to FDA-named breakthrough medical devices – narrowly defined by Congress to include the most promising new technologies, such as those that can treat life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions – once the FDA deems them safe and effective.

It is important that the proposed rule maintain the same high standards required by both the FDA and the CMS. In addition, the existing FDA requirements for post-market surveillance will be maintained. This policy bridges the void for patients who would otherwise not have access to the latest FDA authorized technology while waiting for CMS coverage. Still, it encourages researchers to continue collecting real-world evidence of health outcomes that are specific to Medicare beneficiaries.

Patient protection is maintained as MCIT uses existing procedures to restrict access to new technology when safety or efficacy concerns arise.

There is no disadvantage in approving this policy change. Seniors will have more treatment options, and medical technology innovators can work with CMS to carefully examine these patients over a four-year period, generating meaningful real-world evidence to prove that a new device is “sensible and necessary.” “Is Medicare coverage decision and potentially offers more permanent security.

This policy also encourages early investors to support innovation for the most pressing medical conditions as it creates a clear and predictable path – from investing to developing medical products to regulatory review and subsequent patient access.

If the federal government wants to incentivize investment in developing transformative medical innovations and expand choices for our seniors while promoting rigorous evidence generation, MCIT offers a clear way forward. Too many lives depend on it.

Ulrika Jonsson would not ‘rule out’ getting married once more | Leisure

Ulrika Jonsson would not “rule out” getting married again.

The 53-year-old star has been married three times, but she insists that the fourth time she walked down the aisle she wouldn’t say no as she admits “giving a lot of love”.

She said, “I am a hedonist and a spontaneous person who believes in love. Although it would be strange to remarry, I can never rule it out in the future. I remember saying to a friend after my second divorce “You have my permission to shoot me if I ever get married again”.

“She obviously didn’t have a gun when I went and did it anyway! My last marriage was 12 years and the first was seven, so they took a decent amount of time. I have a lot of love to give. But the words” marriage “and” Ulrika Jonsson “have an image problem. You need really good PR.”

And Ulrika announced that she regularly speaks to her children about her “sexual awakening”.

She wrote for The Sun newspaper, adding, “I am having a sexual awakening. I have felt very much a sexual being for many years. I tell my children this regularly – much to their horror – but I repeat it. They have their fingers in their ears and they pretend to be sick.

“But it’s important that women my age are not put in a box and silenced. Everything I’ve been through has made me stronger and believed in me more than ever.”

James McAvoy Breaks #1 Males’s Fashion Rule With Black Tie Blooper

James McAvoy is perhaps best known for playing a clairvoyant on the X-Men series, but if he could read our minds right now, he’d probably be embarrassed.

The 41-year-old Scottish actor was tapped to present the Rising Star Award at the 74th British Academy Film Awards (better known as BAFTAs) over the weekend. He was spotted on the red carpet in a slim black suit prior to the event. Patent leather Chelsea boots and sunglasses from David Beckham’s new brand of glasses – so far, so normal.

But McAvoy undone all of his good work by following a simple but unforgivable male rule: wear a tie with the top button undone. It’s easy, guys – either pull up your top button or drop your tie. Otherwise you just look unprofessional.

Image: Jeff Spicer / Getty

However, not everyone was offended by their fashion sin. His fans loved her online praise, and one of his Instagram followers even commented that he “looks kind of like Tony Stark” (another Marvel character played by) Robert Downey Jr, Naturally).

McAvoy’s Blooper was sharply contrasted because there were only so many well-dressed men attending the event. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tom Hiddleston, and Richard E. Grant kept things classic in black ties; Daniel Kaluuya looked amazing in an all-white look, and Nick Jonas wore a double-breasted jacket so elegant it was worth an award.

It is fitting that McAvoy presented the Rising Star Award this year as he was the first recipient of the award in 2006. That year, another Brit won the award: 19-year-old actress Bukky Bakray, best known for her leading role in the coming 2019-of-age Film Rocks. Other previous winners include Tom Hardy, Eva Green, John Boyega and Shia LaBeouf.

CONNECTED: Shia LaBeouf discovers she committed the ultimate activewear crime for men

McAvoy will next star in the upcoming mystery drama film My Son, alongside Crown actress Claire Foy. But the real question is: will he hit his top button?

Continue reading

How Egyptian leisure has modified below army rule

H.ESHAM ASHMAWY was run twice. Egypt’s most wanted man, an army officer turned jihadist, was hanged from the public in March 2020. Two months later, millions of Egyptians watched the “execution” of an actor who played him on “The Choice,” a television program about terrorism produced by the state secret service. To promote the episode, the spy agency posted videos of Mr. Ashmawy’s actual execution. “The Choice” (pictured) was one of the most watched programs last year during Ramadan, the high season for Egyptian television.

Listen to this story

Your browser doesn’t support this

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Egypt’s television and film industry has long been the envy of the Arab world. During the 20th century, films were one of the country’s greatest exports. From Rabat to Baghdad, the Arabs learned to imitate Egypt’s distinctive dialect through its hugely popular musicals and comedies. Trade gave Egypt cultural influence – and its rulers a propaganda tool. When the cinemas first opened in the 1930s, King Fuad was playing newsreels in which he applied before the feature films. President Gamal Abdel Nasser, in turn, made sure that films portray the monarchy he overthrew as corrupt and evil.

But Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi’s obsession with controlling entertainment is extreme, even by Egyptian standards. Two years after he and other military officials toppled the country’s first democratically elected president in 2013, Sisi warned television stars that if their work did not reflect the state’s positive outlook, they would be “held accountable”. Mr Sisi, now president, nationalized the media out of name and let his men control which shows were being broadcast. In 2016, a state intelligence company began buying Egypt’s largest private television network. As of 2018, one of its subsidiaries, Synergy (maker of “The Choice”), has produced most of the major shows that aired during Ramadan. “It’s a monopoly,” says one filmmaker.

Egypt has always had censors. Under Hosni Mubarak, president from 1981 to 2011, they allowed films to depict police brutality, corruption and even homosexuality. Estimated films from that time would be blocked today, producers say. Sexual innuendos, which used to be common, are forbidden. Extreme poverty cannot be shown lest people believe that Egypt has problems. And the security services have to be portrayed as good guys. The regime believes that old films showing dirty police officers protested against the police in the 2011 Arab Spring. That the protests may have been inspired by real dirty police officers does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Sisi’s henchmen. “The regime sees what happened ten years ago as a cultural failure,” said Ezzedine Fishere, a former diplomat under Mubarak.

Government-sponsored war films and heroic police dramas are popular enough, but Egyptian television is much less interesting than it was before the coup. And it faces growing competition. For years, Syrian and Turkish dramas broadcast by satellite vied with local soaps for Egyptian eyeballs. Now there are new production centers in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Streaming platforms like Netflix and Shahid (owned by the MBC group in Saudi Arabia) offer viewers even more choices. One sign that Egypt’s soft power has declined is that Arab millennials typically understand the Egyptian dialect less than their parents.

However, Mr Sisi’s regime focuses on influencing the Egyptians. “The Choice” makes dubious claims about the Muslim Brotherhood, which held power before Mr. Sisi. “The Swarm,” also by Synergy, glorifies an Egyptian air strike that killed 40 jihadists and seven civilians (this part is not mentioned). “They’re putting in better talent, bigger budgets, and bigger stars,” says a Cairo-based director. “Even if it’s propaganda, the quality is much better.”

The second season of The Choice, which airs this month, will cover the Rabaa massacre in 2013 when hundreds of Brotherhood demonstrators were slaughtered by security forces (under the command of Mr. Sisi). Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group, described the event as “one of the world’s largest single-day killings of protesters in recent history.” The show was shot from the perspective of the heroic police, of course.

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print version under the heading “Good Cops Only, Please.”