AN EMPLOYER HAS BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FORCING A VACCINE MANDATE ON AN EMPLOYEE!
This is a significant precedent
Senator Gerard Rennick posted:
"The South Australian Employment Tribunal has ruled that employers are responsible for compensating employees who acquire vaccine injuries from work directives.
This is a significant precedent as employers are now going to think twice about forcing people to get a vaccine if they have to fork out for potentially significant medical costs if the employee then incurs a vaccine injury.
This is only one case and I suspect it will be appealed. I hope the decision is upheld because it will then open up the option of employers suing governments who mandate vaccines or pharmaceutical companies for unsafe or ineffective vaccines."
Here's the article...
…….and here is the CCH Pinpoint (19 January 2024) summary of the case:
A youth worker who developed pericarditis after his third COVID-19 vaccination will receive weekly compensation and medical expenses, having convinced the South Australian Employment Tribunal that his injury was work-related.
The youth worker, Mr Shepherd, worked in a residential care setting for the Department for Child Protection. A "Major Emergency" concerning the pandemic had been declared under the Emergency Management Act 2004 (EM Act), and Mr Shepherd was required under 2 directions issued under the EM Act to receive a third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within a specified 4 month period to engage in his work and duties. A letter from his employer also required him to provide evidence of his third dose, and he and his supervisor exchanged texts about the Department's direction.
Since developing post vaccine pericarditis after the third dose, Mr Shepherd had only worked for a few months in a part-time administrative capacity. The employer admitted the pericarditis was caused by the third booster vaccination. However, it denied liability for workers compensation, arguing that it was the lawful State Government vaccination directive that relevantly caused the injury rather than his employment. Alternatively, it argued that liability was excluded under the EM Act (s 32A).
The Tribunal rejected the employer's causation argument, that his injury arose as a result of both the vaccination mandate and his employment. A compensable injury need only be "a significant contributing cause" to his injury rather than its only or most significant cause (Return to Work Act 2014 (SA), s 7). The Tribunal also rejected the legislative exclusion defence, because the EM Act (s 32A) does not unmistakably and unambiguously defeat an otherwise valid workers compensation claim, which would be required to override provisions of another Act which are well known and understood. The second reading speech of the EM Bill suggested the liabilities s 32A sought to avoid were unforeseen and novel rather than a well-known and established liability like workers compensation.
The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of Mr Shepherd's claim should be set aside and the employer be ordered to pay weekly compensation and medical expenses, with the parties to submit draft orders to that effect.”
Source: Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2, 15 January 2024. © CCH
The government tried to say it did not mandate vaccination. The government avoided the legal responsibility and passed this legal exposure of potential vaccine injury on to unsuspecting businesses. Now, businesses know that with this ruling by the South Australian Employment Tribunal the doors are open for vaccine injury compensation claims against any employer who coerced their employees to get these injections. Vaccine mandates were always brainless and not based on science. Many have suffered. They must be compensated.
DISCLAIMER:
The information and personal opinions presented in this Substack is based on or derived from sources which I believe are credible and usually reliable. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies in my Substacks which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I do not accept any liability for comments placed on my Substack and my failure to respond to any potentially defamatory or contentious comment should not be taken as passive or otherwise approval by myself. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings.
MY SUBSTACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY FREE. I ENDEAVOUR TO BRING YOU THE TRUTH. PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THAT IS ALL I ASK.
What about those that were forced out of employment and/or contractual arrangements? They were FORCED out of work, because of workplace mandates! Surely, there’s a case to be made here?
Let’s not keep saying that employers were just poor unsuspecting victims in all this, just ‘following guidelines’. Employers who mandated these shots were, for the most part, not required by the government to do so, but rather did so of their own volition because they wanted to and because they could. May they rot in hell when this gets legs…and may they also be found guilty of unlawfully and unreasonably forcing it onto workers who didn’t want it and/or who were subsequently relieved of their ability to earn a living because of it….