Lawyers Navigating 'Gray Line' Between 'Essential' and 'Nonessential' Health Care Workers
While there are essential and nonessential health care practitioners, the governor's executive order must be evaluated to determine how it applies to a hybrid employee, according to Jack Lord, Jr., a partner and litigation lawyer with Foley & Lardner.
March 23, 2020 at 02:56 PM
4 minute read
Navigating the gray line between an essential and nonessential workers amid the coronavirus pandemic is difficult, lawyers told the Daily Business Review in interviews Monday. Hospitals and health care businesses must understand the services that hybrid employees are allowed to provide. Otherwise, they expose themselves to liability if a health care practitioner becomes infected with the coronavirus.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an executive order that prohibits hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, dental, orthodontic and endodontic offices, and other health care practitioners in Florida from providing medically unnecessary or nonurgent procedures and surgeries that if delayed, would not place the patient at risk.
While there are essential and nonessential health care practitioners, DeSantis' executive order must be evaluated to determine how it applies to a hybrid employee, according to Jack Lord Jr., a partner and litigation lawyer with Foley & Lardner. Since the country is in the midst of a pandemic, hospitals must stay open. If a business only provides Botox injections, it is clearly a provider of nonessential services. In the middle falls companies with employees that provide both essential and nonessential services.
"You can imagine there are certain optometry procedures that are nonessential. You don't need to know if you have 20/20 vision right now," Lord said. "But there are certain ophthalmic practices that are essential. There are certain people who, if they don't get shots in their eyes, they could lose their vision."
For those hybrid businesses, there may be furloughs of nonessential staff and requirements that essential employees come into work. DeSantis' order comes as a shortage of resources for use by health care professionals has emerged, including personal protective equipment, such as N95 masks, due to the unprecedented demand for PPE arising from the rampant spread of the coronavirus.
COVID-19 is a severe acute respiratory illness that can spread among people through respiratory droplets and coming in contact with infected surfaces. Symptoms include coughing, fever and shortness of breath. As of 11 a.m. on Monday, there are 1096 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in Florida residents and 14 people have succumbed to the illness. Gov. DeSantis issued a state of emergency in Florida at the beginning of March.
Hospitals and businesses are unlikely to be exposed to litigation claims from the coronavirus outside of workers' compensation claims, so long as their employees are deemed providers of essential services.
"We need people working in our hospitals at this point," Lord said. "They are the definition of an essential worker at this point in time in our country."
"Employees infected in the workplace would likely have to pursue their remedies under state compensation worker statues," said Carlotta Roos, counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. "Typically, those laws are the exclusive remedies for employees for injuries that arise under workplace illnesses. Those statues provide for a variety of remedies, including wage relief and medical expenses."
While there is a national shortage of PPE, Lord said an employee who does not get obtain an adequate supply of PPE and contracts the new virus would likely not have grounds to assert a legal claim against his or her employer, other than through the workers' compensation system. Lord notes, while masks and helpful, they are not "fail-safe."
"We all go to work. We might get the flu; we might get even pneumonia. Is that normally a workers' comp claim?" Lord said. "Not normally. So, probably the worst-case scenario is a workers' comp claim."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readFreeman Mathis & Gary Taps Orlando for Third New Florida Office This Year
3 minute readFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250