Biotechnology and pharmaceutical research is booming in Massachusetts. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) now has $4.5 billion in active projects funded in Massachusetts, which is, by far, the U.S. state with the greatest per capita NIH funding.¹ In fiscal year 2024, the state’s largest healthcare hospital system, Mass General Brigham (MGB), brought in $1.12 billion in NIH grant funding, the most of any hospital network in the nation. In fiscal year 2021, NIH grant funding to MGB was $1.04 billion.² MGB’s revenue totaled $20.6 billion in fiscal year 2024 and $15.7 billion in fiscal year 2021.³⁴ In fact, government’s financial involvement with MGB in fiscal year 2021 exceeds a billion dollars in NIH grant funding, a few hundred million dollars in CARES Act funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), plus an estimated $5 to $10 billion dollars in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revenue. MGB’s finances are so entangled with the U.S. Government that they might as well be an annex of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Another example of entanglement is Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director from January 20, 2021 to June 30, 2023. She was chief of the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2017 to 2020, and was serving on the board of directors of Mass General Brigham at the time of her departure for the CDC.⁵ A fascinating federal court case involving MGB, Adams et al v MGB (2021), held a status conference on February 18, 2025.⁶ There are five plaintiffs (The Pro Se 5) representing themselves against “Goliath,” the biggest hospital network in Massachusetts. MGB has come to be so financially dependent on HHS that it cannot sustain its operations and remain solvent in the foreseeable future without federal funding. The CaseAt the behest of the U.S. and Massachusetts governments, MGB enacted a mandate in August 2021 for all employees to be COVID vaccinated by early November else be terminated from employment. MGB held out to employees the opportunity to submit a religious or medical exemption request. Some sued MGB after being denied an exemption and terminated from employment. The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2021, more than 3 years ago. About 160 former employees originally sued MGB over Title VII religious discrimination and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaints. A short time later, more plaintiffs were consolidated into the case totaling what seems to be 267 plaintiffs by early 2022. From the case file, it appears that depositions and exchange of evidence occurred throughout 2022 and 2023. On October 21, 2024, it appears that more than 200 plaintiffs left the case through “Stipulation of Dismissal,” meaning they likely settled for a cash payment. In looking at the plaintiffs’ attorney’s Facebook page, he posted on January 16, 2025 that he received “$3,065,000.00” in a “Religious Discrimination Settlement.” This is likely the case. Simple math yields somewhere in the area of $15,000 per plaintiff in the settlement. It is also likely that each plaintiff received an amount consistent with their prior annual wages and time of employment, but we cannot be sure that happened. They lost their jobs as doctors, nurses, and other hospital care providers, many making more than $100,000 per year, but settled for such a pittance. Some plaintiffs were employed at MGB for decades. Some worked in the COVID field hospitals of 2020 without protection. These employees had had COVID and did not need a vaccine. They did not deserve the horrendous treatment they received from MGB. Only eight plaintiffs remain active in the case. Three are represented by attorneys. The remaining five are now proceeding pro se (for self), much to the dismay of Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Several times during the status conference, Judge Saylor seemed upset at The Pro Se 5 and told them that continuing pro se is fraught with legal pitfalls that could get a case dismissed for no other reason than not knowing the rules of procedure in litigation. ThesisThe Pro Se 5 are in a pro se legal posture not from hubris in thinking they can be lawyers, but rather born from necessity. The system failed hundreds of plaintiffs in this case, but only these Pro Se 5 have the fortitude to advance the claims they know are righteous. Scarcity of Legal ResourcesIn early 2020, law firms rather quickly began to refuse COVID-related cases such as masking and business closures. In May 2020, a lawyer and full partner in one of Boston’s largest firms told me that his firm would not allow any of their lawyers to take COVID cases. This was confirmed at the COVID Litigators Conference in April 2023 when the audience of ~250 attorneys was asked how many of them were from firms comprising more than fifty attorneys. Only two hands went up. All but two of the attendees were in very small firms or solo practices. One attorney I know who took a couple cases involving grade school mask mandates was persecuted and targeted via a forensic accounting investigation that yielded a mistake, which was used to suspend his license to practice for six years. That message from the government was received by the market of litigation resources. The scarcity of legal resources to pursue COVID-related cases was artificially created by fiat power within the government system. Before publishing this article, I sought comment from members of The Pro Se 5. In their comments lies the dark truth about the state of the litigation services industry in Massachusetts and across America. The Pro Se 5 did not want to be pro se. They were abandoned by their counsel, who told them to take the settlement agreement or find another attorney. They have been seeking representation for months; and one of them has been seeking for years. One of The Pro Se 5 called many attorneys and found two who were interested in taking her case. However, after the two talked to the attorney of record in the case, who proffered the ultimatum to settle or find another attorney, they both declined to take the case. Another of The Pro Se 5 said she had an interested attorney, but the same thing happened when that attorney talked to the attorney of record in the case. Another said she called many attorneys and some explained why The Pro Se 5 would not find an attorney in Massachusetts. One attorney said that he would not take a case against one of the largest and most powerful employers in the state (MGB). Another attorney told her that it would be damaging to his practice for him to take cases related to vaccines. In addition to the scarcity of legal services issue, there are other issues that retard citizens’ access to the courts. In subsequent articles, the following issues will be scrutinized in the context of Adams et al v MGB (2021):
ConclusionThe Pro Se 5 have obviously had a rough time having their individual cases heard over the last three years. The defendant was able to dispose of more than 250 plaintiffs for a pittance at the expense of the rights of the Pro Se 5, who have been utterly patient waiting to be heard. The Pro Se 5 concluded their status conference by asking for 30 days to file an amended complaint. This is what piqued my interest to report on this case. One of the plaintiffs mentioned that she has another cause of action. MGB hired her again in 2023 and again put her through the religious exemption process. Her flu exemption was approved and she worked for a couple months — that is, until they denied her COVID exemption and fired her again. This in itself is cause to allow a second amended complaint. I don’t see how MGB is going to stop the amended complaint and the new discovery it requires. This case will shed light on many of the issues in American Jurisprudence, especially civil procedure. God Bless you all John 14:6 TRUTHReferences1 (2025). Active Funding by State. Report Reporter. National Institutes of Health. Found at https://reporter.nih.gov/ on 2025-02-22. 2 (2025). NIH Awards any Location & Organization. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National Institutes of Health. Found at https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2021&state=&ic=&fm=&orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid= on 2025-02-22. 3 (Dec 18, 2024). Mass General Brigham Reports 2024 Financial Results. Financial Information. Mass General Brigham. Found at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/q4-2024-financial-results on 2025-02-22. 4 (Aug 6, 2021). Mass General Brigham Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results. Financial Information. Mass General Brigham. Found at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/mass-general-brigham-reports-third-quarter-2021-financial-results on 2025-02-22. 5 Leadership. Mass General Brigham. Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Found at https://web.archive.org/web/20201025104444/https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/how-we-lead/leadership on 2025-02-23. 6 Adams v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated (1:21-cv-11686). Court Listener. Found at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60652918/adams-v-mass-general-brigham-incorporated/ on 2025-02-24. You're currently a free subscriber to The Real CdC’s Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment