Nebraska Delta-8 Update

As retailers continue to enter the Delta-8 THC market in Nebraska, much uncertainty remains regarding how long the unrestricted sale of Delta-8 THC products will continue in this state. Since we published our last article on Delta-8 THC in October 2021, several additional states have taken steps to ban or regulate Delta-8 THC products. This includes South Dakota, which recently passed a bill making it illegal for persons under 21 to buy Delta-8 THC products.

As we have previously discussed, Delta-8 THC provides a similar, but milder euphoric effect compared to the more common Delta-9 THC (which is abundant in commercially produced medical and recreational cannabis).  However, Delta-8 THC does not occur naturally in high concentrations in cannabis plants and must be extracted from CBD oil using a chemical synthetization process. Delta-8 THC became legal in Nebraska through a loophole in the Nebraska Hemp Farming Act, which made hemp products legal in Nebraska as long as they had a Delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 % on a dry weight basis.  

Since we published our last article on Delta-8 THC, we are not aware of any potential legislation that would impact Delta-8 THC sales in Nebraska nor has the Nebraska Attorney General issued any statement or opinion regarding its legality (as he was requested to do by Governor Ricketts).  However, there has been other activity that does not bode well for Nebraska Delta-8 THC retailers.  For example:

• CBD Oracle, a website that reviews hemp-derived products including CBD as well as Delta-8 THC products, sent 51 different Delta-8 THC products to FESA Labs, a licensed testing company in Santa Ana, California, to see if potency levels and other metrics printed on the products’ labels were accurate. The results of these tests determined that (i) 76% of tested products contained Delta-9 THC at greater than the 0.3% limit set by the 2018 Farm Bill, making them federally illegal (and illegal in Nebraska) and (ii) 77% of products tested had less Delta-8 THC than advertised, on average containing 15% less than the advertised amount.  The inaccurate labeling and the inconsistent (and illegal) THC levels contained in Delta-8 products have been a reason many opponents have used to push for restrictions on their sale.

•  The Food and Drug Administration has issued safety warnings regarding Delta-8 THC products based on the unregulated nature of the production process. Some manufacturers may use potentially unsafe household chemicals to make Delta-8 THC through the chemical synthesis process needed to extract it. Final Delta-8 THC product may therefore have potentially harmful by-products and contaminants due to the chemicals used in the process, and there is uncertainty with respect to other potential contaminants that may be present or produced depending on the composition of the starting raw material. In addition, manufacturing of Delta-8 THC products may occur in uncontrolled or unsanitary settings, which may lead to the presence of unsafe contaminants or other potentially harmful substances.

• The Attorney General for the State of Kansas issued an opinion in December 2021 which stated that Delta-8 THC is illegal under Kansas law.  While such opinion does not constitute binding law in Kansas, it has led to raids on certain Kansas Delta-8 retailers and County Attorneys pursuing charges against such retailers.

For now, Nebraska retailers appear safe, but that could change at any time.  Retailers are urged to move cautiously and limit any large-scale investments in a Delta-8 THC business until the future landscape becomes clearer.  If you have any questions about Delta-8 THC or other cannabis issues, attorneys at Erickson | Sederstrom can assist you. Attorneys Shay Garvin or Andrew Collins can be reached (402) 397-2200.

Medicinal Cannabis in Nebraska May be Coming Soon

A registered ballot question committee, Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, has been working to gather signatures to place two initiatives on the Nebraska ballot in November later this year.   If these initiatives are added to the ballot, and confirmed by a majority of voters, they would serve to legalize the possession and use of cannabis for medicinal purposes in Nebraska.

The legalization of cannabis for medicinal purposes would be a significant departure from Nebraska’s historic stance against it.  While the Nebraska Hemp Farming Act was passed in 2019, the intent of this legislation was to legalize industrial hemp in Nebraska, and not the use of cannabis for any of its psychoactive properties (for medicinal use or otherwise).  In addition, several medicinal cannabis bills have been proposed and failed in the unicameral in the past few years.  Also, in 2020, a medicinal cannabis measure that would have been on the 2020 ballot was invalidated by the Nebraska Supreme Court after a determination that the initiative violated Nebraska’s single subject rule.  

However, the tide may be changing.  Many former cannabis opponents have recently appeared to alter their stance on medicinal cannabis.  For example, in January 2022, former State Senator Mike Groene, who had previously been outspoken against the subject, sponsored LB1275, which would legalize cannabis use for a limited number of medical conditions and authorize a defined number of dispensaries to operate in the state. In addition, Governor Ricketts (who appeared in an ad as recently as December 2021 advocating against medicinal cannabis) recently stated that he was “open to learning more about [LB1275]”.   Advocates for medicinal cannabis in Nebraska believe that these shifting viewpoints are evidence that cannabis opponents believe they can no longer keep the public sentiment on the issue at bay, and such opponents would rather control medicinal cannabis through legislation instead of a voter approved constitutional amendment.

In anticipation of medicinal cannabis becoming a reality in Nebraska, potential cultivators, processors, retailers, and other participants have already begun making plans for this possible new market.Since cannabis that is used to treat medical conditions is currently illegal under federal law (making transportation across state lines illegal), such cannabis is typically grown and processed in the state where it will be sold.In Nebraska, legal medical cannabis would likely result in the construction and/or leasing of large-scale cultivation and processing facilities where medicinal cannabis goods would be grown and produced, as well as new markets for the transportation, storage, and retail sale of such goods.We are currently advising clients on a multitude of issues related to these new markets, including banking, leasing, and transportation. If you have any questions about cannabis issues, the attorneys at Erickson | Sederstrom can assist you. Attorneys Shay Garvin or Andrew Collins can be reached (402) 397-2200.

Nebraska Updates Vaccine Mandate Legislation

On February 25, 2022, the Nebraska Legislature passed LB 906, which addresses COVID-19 vaccine mandates implemented by Nebraska employers.  It allows for certain exceptions for employees who complete a form prepared by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for medical or religious objections, and also permits employers to require wearing of masks and periodic testing at employer expense.  The bill has an emergency clause which means that as soon as it is signed by the Governor, it becomes fully effective.  The details of this new legislation are set out below.

The new COVID-19 vaccine mandate legislation applies to all private Nebraska employers regardless of size, as well as the State of Nebraska, government agencies and all political subdivisions.  However, it should be emphasized that Nebraska employers in the healthcare industry are already subject to the Federal vaccine mandate applicable to healthcare employers, which will take precedence over the new Nebraska COVID-19 legislation.  It should also be emphasized that LB 906 only applies to COVID-19 vaccinations, and no other employer mandated vaccinations. 

The new law does not apply to the United States and other Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and bona fide private membership clubs exempt from taxes under the Internal Revenue Code.

It requires the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to develop a vaccine exemption form for individual employees to submit to claim an exemption from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.  The form is required to contain two separate potential declarations:  (1) that a certified healthcare practitioner has provided the individual with a signed written statement that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is medically “contraindicated for the individual”, or that “medical necessity” requires the individual to delay receiving a COVID-19 vaccination; or (2) receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would conflict with the individual’s “sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.”

Once this new law takes effect, any Nebraska employer that requires applicants or employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must allow for an exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for any individual who provides the employer with the completed vaccine exemption form, and for any individual claiming the exemption based upon the statement of a healthcare practitioner, a copy of the health practitioner’s signed written statement.

Nebraska employers may require any employee granted an exemption under this new law to be periodically tested for COVID-19 at the employer’s expense, and to wear and use masks or other personal protective equipment provided by the employer.

This differs substantially from recently proposed Federal vaccine mandate legislation as well as the current Federal vaccine mandate applicable to healthcare employers.  Specifically, other vaccine mandates and proposed legislation provide(d) that an employee seeking to avoid the vaccination mandate and be granted an exception would assume the cost of periodic testing in order to be exempt from the vaccination requirement.  Nebraska employers who desire to exercise their right to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations are now faced with bearing a considerable cost of periodic testing for employees who submit the exemption form.  Business organizations and the Chambers of Commerce were opposed to this provision, but were unsuccessful in keeping it out of the final version of LB 906. 

Given that the COVID-19 outbreak is waning, and with much of the population already vaccinated, or immune due to having had COVID, this Legislation may just be a solution in search of a problem.  However, the Legislation passed by a vote of 37-5, with 5 abstentions, so there was obviously a strong feeling among the majority of Senators in the Nebraska Legislature that a law limiting employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates was required at this time.

It will be interesting to see how this new law develops, and how many Nebraska employers determine that they will either implement or continue an existing COVID-19 vaccination requirement.  Employers in the healthcare industry are still covered by the Federal vaccine mandate applicable to healthcare organizations. 

One interesting aspect is the fact that any employee who seeks to declare a religious exemption must simply fill in the form stating that receiving a COVID-19 vaccination would conflict with their “sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance.”  There is no threshold requirement to establish such beliefs, which differs considerably from the law in the area of religious discrimination in employment, which requires that any individual seeking to assert a religious discrimination claim establish or prove that they are actually a member of a particular religion, and an active participant in the particular religion’s practices and activities.  For purposes of the new law on COVID-19 vaccinations in Nebraska, it is clear that an employee seeking an exemption must simply fill out the form and include that particular section in seeking an exemption.

As noted above, LB 906 has an emergency clause, so it will go into effect as soon as it is signed by the Governor, which will likely be early in the week of February 28th.  Therefore, any Nebraska employer that currently has a COVID-19 vaccination mandate or is considering implementing one, should take immediate steps to comply with this new Nebraska law.

Supreme Court Blocks Employer Vaccine Mandate but Allows Health Care Mandate

On January 13, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the OSHA ETS (Emergency Temporary Standard), requiring private employers with 100 or more employees to impose vaccine and testing mandates, is unlawful and exceeds OSHA’s authority. The Supreme Court allowed a vaccine mandate for health care facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments to remain in effect.

In an unsigned opinion, the Court said “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.” “Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,” the court wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. “In the face of a still-raging pandemic, this Court tells the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all the workplaces needed,” their dissent said.

Separately, the Court issued an opinion addressing the administration’s vaccination rules for health-care workers. A 5-4 majority upheld the health care worker vaccination rules. In another unsigned opinion, the Court said “We agree with the Government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissent.

Following the decision, the Biden administration encouraged employers to voluntarily enact COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements.

Erickson | Sederstrom’s experienced employment and labor law attorneys are ready to help manage COVID-19 vaccination issues in the workplace. Please do not hesitate to contact one of our attorneys. Erickson|Sederstrom’s employment law attorneys can be reached at (402)397-2200.

December 20 Update Regarding Vaccine Mandates

Erickson|Sederstrom provides this update regarding the status of various vaccine mandates issued by the Biden administration.  These mandates have been the subject of court challenges with varying results.  It continues to be crucial for employers to remain up to date regarding the current status of vaccination requirements that affect their businesses, as the litigation will continue to move through the courts, leading to unpredictable outcomes until final resolution is reached, likely in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

In a key development, an injunction against enforcement of the large business mandate was lifted on December 17.

Large Business Mandate

Businesses with 100 or more workers must require employees to be vaccinated.  Unvaccinated employees must be tested weekly and wear masks while working.  The rule contains exceptions for employees who work alone or mostly outdoors.

This rule had been enjoined nationwide.  On Dec. 17, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the mandate, lifting the injunction against enforcement.  Multiple cases from across the country had been consolidated into the 6th Circuit, which was selected at random through a court lottery system.

OSHA has announced that it will not issue employer citations before Jan. 10 for its vaccination mandate or before Feb. 9 for its testing requirement.

Health Care Worker Mandate

A wide range of health care providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding were to require workers to receive the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 6 and be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4. The rule would affect more than 17 million workers in thousands of health care facilities and home health care providers.

The rule is enjoined in Nebraska and adjoining states.  A Missouri-based federal judge issued an injunction Nov. 29 barring the rule from enforcement in 10 states that had originally sued in federal court in Missouri.  There are injunctions in place in some other states based on separate lawsuits. 

The Biden administration is appealing these court rulings in separate appellate courts.  At this point, the cases have not been consolidated into any one federal appellate court. 

Federal Contractor Mandate

Contractors and subcontractors for the federal government are required to comply with federal workplace safety requirements, which require that new, renewed, or extended contracts include a clause requiring employees to be fully vaccinated Jan. 18.  There are limited exceptions for medical or religions reasons.

A federal judge in Georgia issued an injunction December 7 prohibiting enforcement of the requirement for contractors.  The ruling applies nationwide.  An appeal is expected.

Nebraska Employees Terminated for Refusing to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccination Pursuant to An Employer Instituted Vaccine Requirement Eligible for Unemployment Compensation

The Nebraska Department of Labor (NDOL) recently issued a guidance memorandum regarding unemployment benefit eligibility for employees terminated for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.  The guidance memorandum posted very quietly on the NDOL website is advisory in nature, but is binding on the NDOL, including its claims examiners and appeals tribunal, and Administrative Law Judges, unless or until amended by the NDOL.  Let’s examine the new guidance to determine its full effect on Nebraska employers.

Background.

The guidance memorandum posted in late November, 2021 is intended to provide individuals and Nebraska employers with an understanding of how the NDOL will interpret the definition of “misconduct” as applied under the Nebraska Employment Security Law to determine a separated employee’s eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.  It has become settled law in Nebraska that, when an employee is involuntarily terminated from employment, the employee is eligible for unemployment compensation benefits unless the reason for the termination amounts to “misconduct”.  Misconduct is defined under the Nebraska Employment Security Law as conduct “not in the best interests of the employer.”  As a practical matter, employees terminated for unsatisfactory performance are not disqualified from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits, and there must be some clear violation of a critical employer interest, policy or rule to constitute misconduct.  Employees found to have engaged in misconduct that is gross, flagrant, willful or unlawful receive a more lengthy disqualification for eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. 

New Guidance.

The NDOL’s recent guidance implements the following rule to be followed within the agency in employee separations due to the employee’s refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.

“For all individuals who began work for an employer prior to an employer instituting a COVID-19 vaccine requirement:

--  an individual who is discharged from employment for refusing to receive a vaccination against Covid-19, shall be deemed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct and not be disqualified for unemployment benefits on account of such discharge; and

--  impact to an employer’s experience account will be determined under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-652.”

In short, the guidance indicates that employees who are already employed when the employer implements a new COVID-19 vaccination mandate will receive unemployment compensation benefits, and those benefits will be applied against the employer’s unemployment compensation tax account.  Since the guidance is expressly limited only to those employees who became employed prior to the employer-instituted vaccination requirement, any employee accepting employment with an employer when the COVID-19 vaccination requirement has already been instituted, and who then refused to get a vaccination, would be subject to disqualification from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits due to violation of a known policy, i.e., conduct not in the best interests of the employer.

As a practical matter, however, it is not likely that any applicant who is going to refuse a COVID-19 vaccination in order to comply with the employer’s mandate would accept such employment in the first place, and it is not likely that this will become a major issue. 

Moreover, the recently issued COVID-19 vaccination requirements at the federal level are not currently being implemented or enforced, as the OSHA mandate covering private employers with more than 100 employees, the CMS rule requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers, and the federal mandate for all employees of employers with federal contracts, have all now been blocked by Federal Courts with the result that all implementation and potential enforcement has been terminated at the federal level for the time being. 

The NDOL apparently felt that this guidance memorandum and advisory was necessary since some employers are implementing COVID-19 vaccination mandates on their own.  Indeed, in issuing the guidance, the NDOL expressly recognized that under Nebraska law employers may institute COVID-19 vaccination requirements, while also expressly recognizing that Nebraskans have individual responsibility and personal freedom of their healthcare decisions and that the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccination is a personal choice involving medical, religious, and other personal factors.  Based on these statements and the recognition that requirements may be issued by employers regarding COVID-19 vaccinations which may not have existed at the time individual employment was accepted, apparently caused the NDOL to believe that a policy guidance pronouncement was in order.

Time will tell how these issues will play out in Nebraska and at the federal level, and we will keep you updated on any further developments in this area.

Erickson | Sederstrom PC’s employment attorneys are well-versed in the COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in the legal and HR landscape. They can be reached 402-397-2200.

Court Blocks COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate for Health Care Workers

On November 29, 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp of the Eastern District of Missouri issued an Order granting a preliminary injunction against implementation of a federal government mandate for health care workers to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.  Judge Schelp’s order was issued in a lawsuit brought against the federal government by Nebraska and nine other states (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming).  The Order applies to health care workers in these ten states.

The vaccine mandate was issued by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) earlier in November and applies to all Medicare and Medicaid certified medical providers.  Judge Schelp concluded that CMS had issued the mandate improperly and had to get approval from Congress. 

The preliminary injunction will remain in place unless and until there is a further court order modifying or removing the injunction.  It is anticipated that the federal government will appeal Judge Schelp’s Order.

Employers should consult with counsel to obtain further information and guidance about the most current circumstances.  Erickson|Sederstrom’s employment law attorneys are available to assist.

Mandatory Vaccination and Testing Requirements for Private Employers with Over 100 Employees

• OSHA issued its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) regarding Covid-19 vaccination and testing requirements on November 4, 2021. 

• The OSHA ETS will take effect immediately, but most requirements do not kick in until January 4, 2022, or thirty (60) days after the date the ETS was published in the Federal Register.  By January 4, 2022, employers will be required to comply with the vaccination requirements. 

• After sixty (60) days, employers must comply with all testing requirements for those employees who have not become fully vaccinated.   

• This new vaccination and testing mandate will apply to all employers with more than 100 employees, and to all federal contractors. 

• It will not apply to employees who either work at home or work outdoors. 

• Covered employers will have two options, the first being to mandate that all employees not working at home or outdoors must be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022. 

• There is an exemption to the vaccination requirement for those employees who are entitled to a reasonable accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief, i.e., active practice of a recognized religion and a valid religious objection. 

• An exemption will also be provided for any employee who has valid medical certification from a licensed healthcare provider that the employee should not receive the vaccination either because of a specific medical condition or disability.   

• Under the vaccination requirement, employees must provide proof of vaccination either through a CDC Vaccination Record Card, or other medical records of immunizations received, documentation from a certified pharmacy, or other source. 

• The vaccination must be one of the FDA approved vaccinations, i.e., Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson. 

• Any employee who refuses to be vaccinated will have an alternative method of compliance with the mandate by wearing a mask at all times when they are not either in a personal office with the door closed, or eating or drinking, in combination with providing proof of a valid negative SARS test for Covid every seven (7) days. 

• There is no requirement that employers pay for the regular testing. 

• The OSHA ETS requires that all employers provide up to four (4) hours of paid time off for employees to get vaccinated, including travel time, as well as provision of reasonable paid time off to recover from any illness or side effects as a result of receiving the vaccination.   

• Any employee who has tested positive for Covid-19 in a SARS test or otherwise diagnosed with Covid by a licensed health practitioner will not be subject to testing for a period of ninety (90) days following any such positive diagnosis, due to the high incidence of false positives for ninety (90) days after a Covid infection. 

• All employers are required to establish a written policy concerning the mandatory vaccination requirement, and an alternative policy outlining the only exemptions the Mandatory Vaccination Requirement which allows employees to avoid the vaccination mandate by wearing a mask at all times in the workplace, unless in a private office with the door closed or eating, drinking, etc., and provision of proof of regular negative tests for Covid-19 every seven (7) days. 

• Covered employers found to be in violation may be fined up to $13,653 for each violation, and any covered employer found to have willfully or repetitively violate the standards may be fined up to $136,532.

 Our labor and employment law experts at Erickson | Sederstrom, P.C., LLO, can assist you with development of the required policies and on-going compliance with this new OSHA ETS Mandate.

OSHA Releases COVID-19 Vaccine ETS Requiring Vaccination for Employers with 100 or More Employees

On November 4, OSHA released its COVID-19 vaccine ETS (Emergency Temporary Standard), requiring many employers to implement COVID-19 mandates for vaccination and testing.  While legal challenges are expected, it is critical for employers to understand the requirements, develop polices, and be prepared to comply. 

The ETS applies to all private employers with 100 or more employees, but does not apply to employees who work from home, work in a location where no other individuals are present, or who work exclusively outdoors.  Covered employers will have until January 4 to ensure that their work forces are vaccinated.  But most other requirements of the ETS must be implemented by December 5.  Employees who are not vaccinated must submit to weekly coronavirus testing and mask wearing while in the workplace.  It is up to employers to decide whether employees can opt out of vaccination through the weekly testing.  However, employers are not required to provide or pay for testing, unless required by a union contract or other local law.  Employers are also required to provide up to four hours of paid time off to be vaccinated, as well as sick leave to recover from vaccine side effects. 

Employers will need to plan for employees claiming religious and medical exemptions. 

 When an employer is on notice that an employee holds a sincere religious belief, practice, or observance preventing the employee from obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship.  This includes accommodation requests from employees preferring an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine available to the employee.   

A medical exemption would require a note from the employee’s doctor. 

 Erickson | Sederstrom’s experienced employment and labor law attorneys are ready to help manage these COVID-19 vaccination issues in the workplace.  Please do not hesitate to contact one of our attorneys.  Erickson|Sederstrom’s employment law attorneys can be reached at (402)397-2200.

Long-Haul COVID-19 Illness May Qualify as a Disability Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Although most people with COVID-19 recover within weeks, some continue to experience symptoms months or longer following initial infection or may experience new or recurring symptoms at a later time. This condition is referred to as “long COVID” and those who suffer from this condition are often referred to as “long-haulers.” 

Due to the rise of long COVID as a significant health issue, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) collaborated to develop guidance about whether individuals suffering from long COVID are considered to have a disability entitling them to protection under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (which apply to governments and public accommodations), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), all of which protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination. While the guidance is not directly applicable under Title I of the ADA, which governs private employers, it is nonetheless instructive and provides best practices for private employers. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), people with long COVID have a range of new or ongoing symptoms that can last weeks or months after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 and that can worsen with physical or mental activity. Examples of symptoms of long COVID include but are not limited to: 

·  Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath

·  Tiredness or fatigue

·  Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”)

·  Cough

·  Chest or stomach pain

·  Headache

·  Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations)

·  Joint or muscle pain

·  Sleep problems

·  Fever

·  Dizziness on standing (lightheadedness)

·  Mood changes

·  Change in smell or taste 

Long COVID may qualify as a disability under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ACA if the symptoms or condition constitute a “physical or mental” impairment that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. 

Major life activities are a broad category, including things such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, writing, communicating, interacting with others, and working. The term also includes the operation of a major bodily function, such as the functions of the immune system, cardiovascular system, neurological system, circulatory system, or the operation of an organ. The impairment does not need to prevent or significantly restrict an individual from performing a major life activity to “substantially limit” the major life activity and the limitations do not need to be severe, permanent, or long-term to qualify as a disability. Indeed, in a joint statement issued July 26, 2021, the DOJ and HHS said “substantially limits” should be interpreted broadly and should not demand extensive analysis, and provided the following examples of situations in which a COVID-19 long-hauler might be substantially limited in a major life activity: 

·         A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities. 

• A person with long COVID who has symptoms of intestinal pain, vomiting, and nausea that have lingered for months is substantially limited in gastrointestinal function, among other major life activities.

• A person with long COVID who experiences memory lapses and “brain fog” is substantially limited in brain function, concentrating, and/or thinking. 

However, long COVID is not always a disability. An individualized assessment is necessary to determine whether a person’s long COVID condition or any of its symptoms substantially limits a major life activity. When long COVID does qualify as a disability, those suffering from long COVID are entitled to protections and certain accommodations under the above laws, which may include leave, part-time work and/or job restructuring. People with severe COVID-19 symptoms that last for months may also be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in addition to the ADA, while those who recover quickly may not be covered by the ADA but might be protected by the FMLA. 

If you are an employee or employer seeking guidance on whether long COVID qualifies as a disability, and the scope of the laws’ coverage and application, the employment attorneys at Erickson | Sederstrom can assist you.

No Double Liability to Amputee for Loss of Foot and Toes in Workers’ Compensation Matter

In a recent decision, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the discontinuance of temporary partial disability benefits triggered the payment of permanent partial disability payments in a Workers’ Compensation case involving an employee who endured an amputation below his knee as a result of a work-related injury. 

In Melton v. City of Holdrege, Mr. Benjamin Melton (“Employee”) was employed by the City of Holdrege (“City”) as a journey-man lineman where he sustained a work-related injury resulting in an amputation of his left leg just below the knee.  309 Neb. 385, 386-87 (2021).  Thereafter, Employee obtained a prosthesis; however, he endured issues with the prosthesis including shrinking, swelling, sweating, and obtaining a good fit.  Just over six years later, Employer provided City medical documentation from his physician indicating he reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”).  City paid Employee permanent partial disability benefits for a one hundred percent loss of his foot and an additional five percent loss to his leg upon receipt of such documentation. 

The trial court waded through conflicting evidence concerning Employee’s impairment rating and when Employee reached MMI.  It was determined Employee’s amputation below the knee entitled him to statutory benefits for 150 weeks under Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48-121(3).  The trial court reasoned that Employee had not lost all functional use of his left leg, but his loss of thigh strength and atrophy combined with his knee pain reduced the function of his leg beyond the loss of his foot.  Employee suffered a twenty percent loss of function to his leg, entitling him to forty-three weeks of disability benefits.  Employee was awarded a combined total of 193 weeks of compensation, rejecting Employee’s argument that he was entitled to an award for the loss of each toe on his left foot in addition to the loss of that foot.   

On appeal, Employee argued the trial court (1) failed to evaluate loss of use of his leg without the prosthesis attached when determining his impairment; (2) should have awarded him compensation for the total loss of use of his leg; and (3) erred in failing to award him consecutive disability benefits for a total loss of all his toes, his foot, and use of his left leg.   

The Nebraska Supreme Court held the trial court did not err in failing to evaluate Employee’s loss of use of his leg without his prosthesis attached since Employee did not lose all functional use of his left leg.  The court reasoned Employee, without his prosthesis, could pick his left leg up waist high, crawl up stairs, climb ladders, and navigate uneven terrain by crawling, scooting, or sliding.  Accordingly, the trial court was not in error in determining Employee’s loss based on the use of his prosthesis.   

To bolster his argument in favor of an award for a total loss of use for his left leg, Employee turned to the practical intents and purposes test, which derived from Pennsylvania, and was cited in Jacob v. Columbia Ins. Group, a Nebraska Court of Appeals case.  2 Neb. App. 473, (1994).  In essence, the test has been used to determine whether a disability to a claimant’s body renders such a body part to serve “no real purpose.”  Applied in Melton, Employee argued he sustained a 100 percent loss of use of his left leg.  However, the court held Employee’s left leg could not be rendered “useless” because he retained enough strength in his left leg to successfully use the prosthetic device by being able to bend his knee and support weight on the residual limb.  Therefore, although Employee’s leg was not useless, Employee suffered an additional twenty percent loss of function in his leg that went beyond what would have otherwise been expected after amputation of his left leg below the knee.   

Finally, Employee asserted he was entitled to consecutive amounts of disability benefits for the loss of his five toes, the loss of his left foot, and the total loss of his left leg under Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48-121(3).  However, the court directed Employee to the four corners of the law and held § 48-121(3) explicitly stated a below-the-knee amputation was the equivalent of a loss of a foot and did not equate to the loss of one’s entire leg.  The court turned to the policy behind the law and reasoned a party may not have double recovery for a single injury.  Accordingly, Employee’s loss of his leg below-the-knee would obviously include the loss of his toes under § 48-121(3) since the legislature limited the loss to the foot.   

Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court’s determinations that Employee did not suffer a total loss of use of his leg because it appropriately compensated Employee for the functional loss of his leg that was not already accounted for in the compensation for the loss of his foot.  Further, the court upheld the trial court’s award of loss of use benefits for the leg and refused to extend double recovery to Employee.   

This article was prepared by Erickson Sederstrom’s law clerks Alison Clark and Rob Toth under the direction of employment attorney Bonnie Boryca, who can be reached at 402-397-2200.

Nebraska Supreme Court Clarifies the Duties of Mental Health Professionals

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified duties of mental health professionals to warn and protect third parties from their patients.  In Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr. of Cath. Health Initiatives, the court held that mental health professionals owe no duty as a matter of law to third parties for physical injuries caused by a patient who has not “actually communicated” such a threat to their mental health professionals.  The court further determined that a mental health professional’s duty to warn or protect may be met by reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the third party and law enforcement. 

 Facts of Rodriguez

 In Rodriguez, the Omaha police placed a patient under emergency protective custody and transported him to Lasting Hope because he expressed intentions of killing his mother.  Upon arrival, the patient was assigned a treating psychiatrist.  The patient’s psychiatrist determined the patient was paranoid, homicidal, delusional, and posed a risk for harm to others outside the hospital environment.  The psychiatrist’s determination was based on the patient’s previously expressed intentions of killing his mother.  Therefore, the psychiatrist recommended for the patient five to seven days’ hospitalization for stabilization and safety, and Lasting Hope called the patient’s mother to warn her of his threats.  

 During the patient’s hospitalization, his girlfriend visited and expressed that she no longer wished to be his girlfriend.  The girlfriend was not afforded the same warning as his mother because the patient had not expressed a similar threat against his girlfriend. 

 After six days of compliance with medication and hospitalization by the patient, the psychiatrist concluded the patient was ready to be released.  Further, the patient no longer expressed an intent to harm his mother.  In fact, the patient stated to his psychiatrist that he “had a good conversation” with his mother over the telephone during his hospitalization, and he committed to “not act to harm anyone.”

 The former girlfriend’s body was discovered the following day.  Investigators concluded that the patient strangled his former girlfriend.  The decedent’s parents brought action against Lasting Hope claiming that it was responsible for wrongful death. 

 Duty to Warn & Protect

 The Nebraska Mental Health Practice Act and the Nebraska Psychology Practice Act both contain limits on practitioners’ duties regarding treating patients with mental illness.  These limits were enacted in response to the California Supreme Court's decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California.  There, the court held that a mental health professional “who knows or should know that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to a third party owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn and protect that third party.”   

 In the case of Munstermann v. Alegent Health, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that:

 [A] psychiatrist is liable for failing to warn of and protect from a patient’s threatened violent behavior, or failing to predict and warn of and protect from a patient’s violent behavior, when the patient has communicated to the psychiatrist a serious threat of physical violence against himself, herself, or a reasonably identifiable victim or victims.  The duty to warn of or to take reasonable precautions to provide protection from violent behavior shall arise only under those limited circumstances . . . and shall be discharged by the psychiatrist if reasonable efforts are made to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law enforcement agency.

 Like the Munstermann rule, the Mental Health Practice Act and the Psychology Practice Act explicitly require that for a duty to warn to arise, a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim must be “actually communicated” to a mental health professional.  “Actual communication” requires the patient to verbally express or convey to the psychiatrist their prediction to commit physical violence either against themself or a reasonably identifiable victim.

 The only reasonably identifiable victim the patient “actually communicated” an intent to physically harm was his own mother.  Based on these verbal expressions of threats, the psychiatrist ordered Lasting Hope staff to call the patient’s mother to warn her.  By the time the psychiatrist had ordered the patient’s discharge, she knew that Omaha police were aware of the patient’s threats of physical violence against his mother because Lasting Hope staff had discussed the threats with law enforcement officers, who also warned the patient’s mother.  The patient never actually communicated to his psychiatrist that he intended to harm his former girlfriend; therefore, the psychiatrist had no duty to warn her.

 Under the Munstermann rule, psychiatrists owe no duty as a matter of law to third parties for physical injuries caused by a patient who have not “actually communicated” a threat of physical violence.  Once an “actual communication” has taken place, any duty to warn or protect on the part of the psychiatrist can be discharged by reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim and a law enforcement agency.  Here, the patient’s lack of communicated threats against his former girlfriend meant that no duty to warn or protect was triggered for the psychiatrist.  The former girlfriend’s death was not legally attributable to a breach of duty by the psychiatrist or Lasting Hope because the patient never “actually communicated” that he intended to harm his former girlfriend. 

 Future Developments

 When faced with a patient who “actually communicates” a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable individual, mental health professionals have a duty to both warn and protect that individual.  However, these duties shall be discharged by the psychiatrist if reasonable efforts are made to communicate the threat to both the individual and to a law enforcement agency.

 Erickson | Sederstrom has provided counsel to mental health and other practitioners for decades.  Please consult with one of our attorneys if you have questions regarding impact of the Rodriguez decision and how mental health practitioners can minimize their legal risks.

FAMILIES FIRST CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE ACT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS IN NEBRASKA

On March 18, 2020, in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, Congress enacted the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to provide Americans paid leave, free testing, and access to certain health benefits in order to protect public health. The Act contains two divisions that specifically detail the responsibilities of the employee and employer:

• Division C –Emergency Paid Leave Act of 2020

• Division D – Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act of 2020

DIVISION C –EMERGENCY PAID LEAVE ACT OF 2020

Division C provides benefits to employees and employers when an employee is unable to work due to COVID-19.

Qualification Criteria

Employee:
• The employee has a current diagnosis of COVID-19
• The employee is quarantined (including self-imposed quarantine), at the instruction of a health care provider, employer, or government official, to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
• The employee is caring for another person who has COVID-19 or who is under a quarantine related to COVID-19.
• The employee is caring for a child or other individual who is unable to care for themselves due to the COVID-19 related closing of their school, childcare facility, or other program.

Employer:
• Government employer
• Companies with 50 – 500 employees
Employers with greater than 500 employees are required to pay the employee during the 80 hours of emergency leave, but are eligible for reimbursement through tax credit.
These benefits are active from January 19, 2020 to January 19, 2021. The benefits can be paid retroactively with applications until July 19, 2020.

The Benefits:
• Regular to two-thirds of the individual’s average monthly earnings (based on the most recent year of wages or self-employment) up to a cap of $4,000.
• Applicants can apply online, by phone, or by mail. In most cases, payments will be issued electronically.
• The beneficiary is responsible for applying.

Summary:
Employees will be compensated for up to weeks (80 hours) of regular pay if they are quarantined or self-quarantined. Employees who are quarantined in order to care for another person who has COVID-19 or for a child is entitled to two-thirds their regular rate of pay for two weeks (80 hours). Covered employers are eligible for dollar-to-dollar reimbursement through tax-credits for all qualifying workers.

DIVISION D – EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STABILIZATION AND ACCESS ACT OF 2020

Division D provides benefits to individuals who are unemployed due to COVID-19.

In order to slow the rate of novel coronavirus (flatten the curve), many businesses have temporarily or permanently closed which has resulted in massive layoffs. Division D of the Act expands existing Unemployment Insurance to address the current employment environment for many Americans. If an employer cannot retain their current number of employees or must reduce employees’ hours have the follow responsibilities.

Duties and Responsibilities

Employer:
• Must provide notification of potential unemployment insurance eligibility to laid-off employees
• Must ensure that employees have at least two ways to apply for benefits
• Must notify applicants (the laid-off employee) when an application is received and being processed and if the application cannot be processed, provide information to the applicant about how to ensure successful processing. Employee
• Must apply for unemployment insurance
• Not obligated to seek employment between March 22, 2020 and May 2, 2020.

Benefits:
In general, the unemployed worker in Nebraska will receive half their regular weekly wage up to $440 each week and an additional $600 provided by the Act in effort to mitigate the economic impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Short Term Compensation may be available to employees whose hours have been cut due to the pandemic. Benefits should be sought through NEworks.nebraska.gov.

Qualifications:
• Unemployed worker has had one unpaid week
• Unemployed worker whose job loss is due to no fault of their own
• Self-employed worker whose earnings have been impacted by the pandemic

Summary:
Employees who are laid off or face reduced hours due to COVID-19 may apply for unemployment benefits or short term compensation and are not required to seek new employment between March 22, 2020 and May 2, 2020. The turn around time for receipt of benefits is not currently known.

Erickson | Sederstrom Welcomes New Attorney Blake S. Schneiderwind

Erickson | Sederstrom is pleased to announce that Blake S. Schneiderwind has joined the Firm as an associate representing primarily corporate clients in all aspects of business, from formation and start-up to mergers and acquisitions, and general counsel matters. Blake also aids clients in the health care field in the areas of licensure disputes, health care compliance, and data privacy and security.

Blake graduated magna cum laude in 2019 from Creighton Univerisity School of Law. While at Creighton, he was a member of Creighton’s International Trademark Association Moot Court Team. He received the Cali Excellence for the Future Award for Business Planning, Business Associations, Health Care Organizations, and HIPAA Privacy and Security.

Federal 2016 Budget Delays or Suspends Several ACA Funding Provisions

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed the Federal Budget for 2016 (the "Budget") with several changes to key funding provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). 

The ACA’s so called "Cadillac Tax," a 40% excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans, is now delayed until the year 2020.  This tax had been the subject of much ACA criticism, particularly when considering that the ACA generally promotes choice of insurer and provider flexibility in health insurance offerings. 

The Budget also suspends the ACA’s medical device tax. This 2.3% tax on manufacturers and importers for sales of medical devices will be suspended for two years and will become effective again December 31, 2017.

Finally, the Budget delays the ACA’s health insurance provider’s fee.  This provider’s fee, which is treated as an excise tax, became effective in 2014. The collection of this provider’s fee is suspended for the 2017 calendar year in accordance with the Budget.  Supporters of the Budget are hopeful that the suspension this fee, which is imposed upon health insurance providers and allocated according to market share, will be one less fee or expense being rolled to employers on their health insurance rates.

While it is difficult to determine the future impact that these ACA tax provision delays and suspensions will have, it is clear that the ACA and its various provisions are valuable bargaining chips for both political parties. 

Corporate entities should follow this story as it continues to develop.  The regular changes to the ACA can make compliance a challenge for businesses of all sizes. For more information on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or other healthcare, labor, and employment issues, please contact Blake Schneiderwind with Erickson | Sederstrom.