by B. Hamilton | Apr 6, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
PHOENIX — Arizona businesses can breathe a sigh of relief now that Governor Doug Ducey has signed legislation providing COVID liability protections to Arizona businesses and healthcare workers. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach, “establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if they adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.”
Leach says the bill was needed to protect businesses and healthcare providers from “frivolous lawsuits.”
Leach said that people are the frontlines of the pandemic “will be targets of meritless lawsuits,” without protection.
“With this bill coming along this summer,” said Leach, “the plaintiff will have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person or provider failed to act, or acted with willful misconduct and a gross negligence in order to win a civil lawsuit.”
Leach says the bill provides “common sense protections for the frontline workers in healthcare, schools, and businesses, who have been invaluable during the pandemic response in Arizona.”
Nationwide, according to Leach, more than 2000 coronavirus related cases of them brought forward despite businesses following approved guidelines.
The legislation applies during the current public health pandemic and protects health care institutions and other service providers for any act or omission that is alleged to have occurred during a person’s screening, assessment or treatment that is related to the health emergency. Providers include educational institutions, school districts or charter schools, property owners, lessees and lessors, nonprofit organizations, religious institutions, the State and local governments, health care providers and institutions, and nursing and residential care facilities.
The legislation also provides a presumption for health professionals or health care institutions that they have acted in good faith if they relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance, while also ensuring that such a presumption can be overcome if there is evidence of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
“Small businesses need certainty under the law that if they act in good faith, they’ll be protected from frivolous lawsuits,” said Leach. “I’m grateful to the organizations and fellow legislators who supported Senate Bill 1377, and to Governor Ducey for signing this important legislation.”
SB1377 Provisions
Public Health Pandemic Civil Liability
1. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a person or provider who acts in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public (litigant), from injury from the public health pandemic for injury, death or loss to person or property that is based on a claim that the person or provider failed to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person or provider failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that person’s or provider’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
2. Establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if the person or provider adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.
3. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
4. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
5. Defines provider as:
a) a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment;
b) an educational institution or district;
c) a school district or charter school;
d) a property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee;
e) a nonprofit organization;
f) a religious institution;
g) the state or a state agency or instrumentality;
h) a local government or political subdivision, including a department, agency or commission of a local government or political subdivision;
i) a service provider;
j) a health professional; or
k) a health care institution.
Health Professionals and Health Care Institutions
6. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a health professional (professional) or health care institution (institution) that acts in good faith in any civil action for an injury or death that is alleged to be the professional’s or institution’s action or omission while providing health care services in support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the professional or institution failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that professional’s or institution’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
7. Applies the outlined limited liability to any action or omission that occurs:
a) during a person’s screening, assessment, diagnosis or treatment and that is related to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency; or
b) in the course of providing a person with health care services and that is unrelated to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency if the professional’s or institution’s action or omission was in good faith support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, including:
i. delaying or canceling a procedure that the professional determined in good faith was a nonurgent or elective dental, medical or surgical procedure;
ii. providing nursing care or procedures;
iii. altering a person’s diagnosis or treatment in response to an order, directive or guideline that is issued by the federal government, the state or a local government; or
iv. an act or omission undertaken by a professional or institution because of a lack of staffing, facilities, equipment, supplies or other resources that are attributable to the state of emergency and that render the professional or institution unable to provide the level or manner of care to a person that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the state of emergency.
8. Establishes a presumption that a professional or institution acted in good faith if the professional or institution relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance relating to the public health pandemic that was issued by a federal or state agency.
9. Allows a party to introduce any other evidence that proves the professional or institution acted in good faith.
10. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
11. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
12. Specifies, for claims against a nursing care institution or residential care institution, where the care in question did not directly relate to the public health pandemic, the nursing care institution or residential care institution has the burden to prove the act or omission was the direct result of having to provide care to patients needing treatment for the pandemic or due to limitations caused by the pandemic.
by AZ Free News | Apr 4, 2021 | News
Arizona has joined a coalition of 22 states before the Ninth Circuit defending the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. The states are asking the court to declare California’s law limiting magazine capacities as unconstitutional.
Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming are filing a legal brief at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Duncan v. Rodriquez – a challenge of California’s unconstitutional ban on extremely common magazines for firearms.
In the amicus brief, the states’ attorneys general note that California Penal Code 32310 violates the Second Amendment: “This Court, therefore, should not apply a balancing approach – like strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny – to a ban on arms commonly used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Heller, McDonald, and Caetano.”
“The enumerated right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment is fundamental and predates the Bill of Rights. The right is important to millions of Americans, including many of our most vulnerable citizens living in disadvantaged communities. The arms at issue in these proceedings are commonly used by millions of law-abiding citizens for a myriad of lawful purposes,” added the attorneys general.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Apr 2, 2021 | Opinion
By Free Enterprise Club |
Somehow, they didn’t see it coming. Last week, Gilbert Public Schools, one of the largest school districts in Arizona, notified 152 certified staff members that they would be without jobs for the 2021-2022 school year. And the announcement sent shockwaves throughout Arizona’s public school districts.
But why?
Parents certainly tried to warn them. They pleaded with their school districts to find safe ways to offer in-person learning. And they threatened to leave for charter schools, private schools, or homeschool if they didn’t.
>> READ MORE >>
by AZ Free News | Apr 2, 2021 | News
On Thursday, the Arizona State Senate approved HB 2770, dubbed the mask “Freedom Bill,” sponsored by Rep. Joseph Chaplik. The bill asserts a business is not required to enforce a state, city, town, county or other jurisdiction’s mask mandate on the businesses’ premises.
“The need for this bill now is more evident than ever,” said Chaplik. “Recent developments show that without a protection in law, businesses and their customers are subject to the decisions of local rogue politicians who want to control you indefinitely. This bill did not receive any Democrat votes throughout the entire process. I would hope the Governor signs this bill as it does exactly what his temporary executive orders do, but now permanently.”
The bill will now be transmitted to Governor Ducey.
On June 17, 2020, the governor issued Executive Order 2020-40 authorizing a county, city or town, based on conditions in the jurisdiction, to adopt policies regarding the wearing of face coverings in public for the purpose of mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 29, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Phoenix – According to their proposed fee increases, Arizona State University (ASU) has determined that a master’s in Gender and Women’s Studies should be more affordable than most other graduate programs.
ASU’s Gender and Women’s Studies students face a mere $80 increase. Other masters programs face increases up to hundreds of dollars higher. On the low end, Crime Analysis bears a $100 fee increase. On the high end, students wishing to receive their master’s in either Accountancy or Taxation must pay $1,000.
The new tuition schedules indicate that millions in federal COVID relief dollars weren’t enough for Arizona’s three public universities.
In December, Governor Doug Ducey gave $115 million of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act funds to the state’s three universities. Both the University of Arizona (UArizona) and ASU received $46 million, and Northern Arizona University (NAU) received $23 million.
From the Joint Legislative Budget Committee:
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund ($736 million): Federal Funds are distributed directly to institutions of higher education (IHEs). Arizona IHEs received $304 million from COVID 3. Of this amount, approximately $122 million went to public universities, $82 million to community colleges, and $101 million to private institutions. So far, Arizona IHEs have been allocated $432 million from COVID 4 and are expected to receive additional funds. Of the $432 million, $198 million will be distributed to public universities, $167 million to community colleges, and $67 million to private institutions. For both COVID 3 and COVID 4, some of these monies must be used for student grants, while the remainder may be used to offset revenue shortfalls. For public universities, a total of at least $118 million must be distributed as student grants. COVID 3 monies must be spent by September 30, 2022, and COVID 4 monies by September 30, 2023.
It is unclear what university expenditures necessitated fee increases, especially considering that students attended virtually during the pandemic.
Concerning the new tuition schedules, ABOR emphasized that none of the three proposals included any tuition increases. However, ABOR didn’t say anything about increased program fees.
ABOR Chair Larry Penley said in a press release that the new tuition schedules created by the university presidents “reflects our commitment to ensuring an affordable education even as our institutions experience fiscal challenges wrought from the pandemic.”
That commitment looks like an $80 program fee for an online Master of Arts degree in Women and Gender Studies, compared to a $1,000 per semester program fee increase for Master of Accountancy students.
It is unclear if the decision to increase program costs correlates to the anticipated earnings associated with a field. In those two examples, the average salary for a Women and Gender Studies graduate is $56,233, whereas the average salary for an individual with a Masters In Accountancy is $71,899.
Despite the massive amount of federal dollars, the proposals submitted by the three presidents also included changes to college fees, program fees, class fees, and meal and residence hall rates.
Here are what the increased costs include at one of the universities, ASU:
College of Health Solutions
- Doctor of Audiology: $800/semester program fee increase
- MS Communication Disorders: $1,700/semester program fee increase
- MS Nutritional Science (Dietetics) – Online: $45/credit hour program fee increase
- MS Strength and Conditioning: $2,500/semester – new program fee
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation
- MS Regulatory Science: $2,000/semester – new program fee
Hershberger Institute for Design and the Arts
- M of Architecture ; M of Visual Communication Design ; M of Industrial Design ; M of Interior Architecture ; M of Landscape Architecture ; M of Urban Design: $575/semester program fee increase
- MS in Architecture: $875/semester program fee increase
- MS Design in Industrial Design, Interior Architecture, Visual Communication Design: $500/semester program fee increase
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
- Master of Human Resources and Employment Law: $725/credit hour – new program fee
- Master of Human Resources and Employment Law (Online): $658/credit hour – new program fee
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
- MA Women and Gender Studies (Online): $80/credit – new program fee
Thunderbird School of Global Management
- MA Global Affairs and Management: $489/credit hour program fee increase
- MA Global Affairs and Management (Executive): $489/credit hour program fee increase
Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions
- MS Crime Analysis: $100/credit hour – new program fee
- MA Policy Advocacy (Online): $100/credit hour- new program fee
W.P. Carey School of Business
- Graduate Certificate in Marketing (Online): $375/credit – new program fee
- Graduate Certificate in Real Estate: $375/credit – new program fee
- Master of Accountancy: $1,000/semester program fee increase
- Master of Taxation: $1,000/semester program fee increase
Linked here are the NAU and UArizona proposed program fee increases.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
