There are several important COVID-related lawsuits and legal cases that are occurring throughout the world. I’ve summarized some of them below and will add to this post as I find additional cases.
New York Supreme Court judge grants preliminary injunction allowing gym to open at 100% capacity despite lockdown orders
Orchard Park, NY gym Athletes Unleashed was initially fined $15,000 by the Erie County Health Department for violating COVID-19 social distancing laws. The gym owner ripped up the violation notice and refused to comply with the order or to pay the fine. He later sued Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Health for exceeding their authority in imposing executive orders. A spokesman for Governor Cuomo called the gym owner’s allegations “crackpot logic.” A NY Supreme Court judge, however, has agreed with the gym owners and has granted a preliminary injunction staying the proceedings against the gym and allowing the gym to open at full capacity.
A preliminary injunction does not mean that the gym owner won the case. Preliminary injunctions are granted simply to maintain the status quo before a trial. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a litigant must show a court that the litigant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted and that the litigant has a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the underlying case -or- that there is a significant public interest at stake.
The plaintiff’s initial court filing can be found at this link.
German court rules that social restrictions related to COVID have no effect and are unconstitutional
This case involves quite a bit of analysis. A person was arrested and charged with violating social distancing requirements set forth by German law. The person was celebrating a birthday party in the back yard of a residence with at least seven other people from seven different households. German law prohibits gatherings unless the gatherings involve members of a person’s immediate household and at most one other person outside that household. The law did permit several exceptions to this rule, including marriages, funerals, and religious services.
According to German disease surveillance data, COVID infections never caused a situation in which the health system was in danger of being overloaded. In fact, the number of deaths from severe respiratory infections in Germany was less in 2020 than it was in any of the four preceding years. Such uncompelling data was insufficient to restrict an “inviolable human dignity” such as preventing humans from interacting with each other. The court described how the goals of lockdowns impermissibly morphed from preventing system overload (which never occurred) to minimizing the number of COVID cases. The lockdowns were also considered excessive since during the prior SARS outbreak (MERS) in 2012 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-(mers-cov)) , an estimated 7.5 million deaths was predicted in Germany, but at no time was there a recommendation for limiting public contact, curfews, or extensive shutdown of public life.
The court also reviewed multiple studies of the effectiveness of lockdowns on decreasing the number of infections. German epidemiologic data showed that lockdowns had no effect on the number of new cases or on the number of deaths. A 2019 WHO study showed that “non-pharmaceutical interventions” had no effect on limiting spread of influenza epidemics. A July 2020 study in The Lancet showed no correlation between COVID testing, border closings, or lockdowns and death rates in 50 countries.
In ruling that lockdowns were unconstitutional the court stated that “the restrictions on freedom associated with the lockdown were the most comprehensive and far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights in the history of the Federal Republic” and that “there can be no doubt that the number of deaths attributable to lockdown policy measures alone is many times that of deaths prevented by lockdown.”
The original decision (in German) is contained at this link.
A translation of this decision into English can be found at this Google Translate link.
Medical students sue Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine for inappropriate vaccination mandate
The following summary is taken from facts alleged in complaints filed in the case of Magliulo v. Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, filed in the Western District of Louisiana.
Several medical students sued Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine after school officials reportedly engaged in “harassing and coercive conduct targeting students who have exercised their right to opt-out of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” according to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. Landry then sent VCOM officials several letters threatening a lawsuit if VCOM continued to enforce its vaccine policy. When VCOM continued its discriminatory practices, the medical students filed a lawsuit requesting a restraining order and injunction against VCOM enforcing its policies. The federal court granted the students’ temporary restraining order, stating that “policies that are so punitive that they defeat a right will not withstand scrutiny.” VCOM and the plaintiffs then agreed to a consent order where VCOM agreed to implement reasonable safety measures that did not conflict with Louisiana law and agreed not to take discriminatory or retaliatory actions against the students for exercising their rights under Louisiana law. Two days after the consent order was entered, VCOM implemented new policies that continued to be discriminatory against unvaccinated students. For example, school officials threatened one student for failing to wear a mask when other students were not required to do so. Plaintiffs have now requested that the court issue sanctions against VCOM for violating the consent order.
Updated information about the case can be viewed at this Court Listener link.
The initial complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order can be found at this link.
The motion for sanctions and request to file a second amended complaint are here
For more commentary on medical-related legal cases see the Legal Cases category on this blog.