Maltese workers injured by the vaccine should sue their employer for coercing them to take it

In Australia, Employers are being sued by their injured employees because of the vaccine mandate. This is a first and will have a consequence for other countries. For this reason, it would be interesting to know what the Malta Employers Association says about vaccines. Was it supporting the government in coercing workers to take the vaccine? Suppose the Malta Employers coerced workers to take the vaccine. In that case, this association and its members should be held responsible, and the maimed workers should do like their Australian counterparts and start suing them for damages.

A South Australian court has ordered employers who mandated COVID-19 vaccines for their employees will be held legally liable for injuries caused by the jab. 

The Employment Tribunal ordered compensation for SA government employee Daniel Shepherd, 44, who developed pericarditis after being mandated to have a third dose of the vaccine in February 2022, per ABC News.

The SA government mandated under the Emergency Management Act in January 2022 that certain workers were required to get a booster to keep their jobs. 

Shepherd, former child and youth support worker with the Department for Child Protection (DCP), has been off work since March 2022, save for a two-month part-time period doing administrative work. 

He made a claim for vaccine-related injury workers compensation, but was rejected — however the court ruled in his favour when he appealed. The Court of Appeal ruled he is entitled to workers compensation for the vaccine injury, including weekly income support and medical payments. 

Despite DCP arguing it should be excluded from liability due to Shepherd’s injury being a result of the Emergency Management Act directive, Tribunal Judge Mark Calligeros ruled the vax mandate and DCP were “both significant contributing causes” of his injury.

“Mr Shepherd was required to have a third dose of the vaccine to continue performing duties and be paid,” he said. “The vaccine mandate would not have applied to him had he not been employed by DCP and working in a healthcare setting.”

“The connection between employment and the injury is a strong one given I have found that Mr Shepherd would not have had a third dose of the vaccine if he had not been required to in order to continue working,” said Calligeros.

“It is not surprising that some people who receive a dose of COVID-19 vaccine will sustain injury as a result,” said Calligeros. “The state required Mr. Shepherd to be vaccinated to continue working in a healthcare setting, because it sought to protect and reduce the risk of infection to the public and general and those members of the public receiving healthcare services in particular.”

“It would be ironic and unjust if Mr Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the state’s desire to preserve public health,” the judge added. 

Tribunal documents detail Shepherd’s medical reaction to his first COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021, including aching joints, cold and flu symptoms, and minor chest pain. After his second dose, similar symptoms were recorded. 

At the time of his first two shots, Shepherd worked for Baptist Care SA, which did not mandate (but did encourage) the COVID-19 shots. 

In February 2022, Shepherd had his booster shot. The next day, he had severe chest pain. The pain grew steadily worse for two weeks, at which point the pain was so “unbearable” he thought he was having a heart attack and was taken by ambulance to Ashford Hospital.

Cardiologists diagnosed him with post-vaccine pericarditis which Health Canada describes as “inflammation of the lining around the outside of the heart,” a “rare reaction reported following vaccination with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”

A SA government spokesman said the court’s decision will be “considered,” as would the Emergencies Act. 

“This decision means that if a state government employee is required to become vaccinated as part of their job and they fall within the very small cohort of people who experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine, any injury they experience may be covered by workers compensation laws,” the spokesman said, per ABC. “That is consistent with ordinary principles of workers compensation, which ensure that workers are given appropriate support for injuries which arise from their employment.

“The government will consider the court’s decision and obtain advice on any implications for the effectiveness of the Emergency Management Act,” the spokesman added.