1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PARISH OF CADDO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
)
JASON HAYES, ET AL ) DOCKET NO.
)
)
VERSUS ) DIVISION
)
)
UNIVERSITY HEALTH SHREVEPORT, LLC )
D/B/A OCHSNER LSU HEALTH )
SHREVEPORT and OCHSNER LSU )
HEALTH SHREVEPORT — ST. MARY )
MEDICAL CENTER, LLC ) JUDGE
******************************************************************************

PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY AND

PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

COME NOW, Plaintiffs, who respectfully aver:

PARTIES
1.

Plaintiffs are the following employees, staff, and contract workers of University Health

Shreveport, LLC D/B/A Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport and Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport —

St. Mary Medical Center, LLC (collectively "Defendants" or "Ochsner Shreveport") and its local

affiliates, among the many individuals nationwide heralded as "heroes" for providing healthcare

to others during the COVID-19 pandemic, referred to by Defendant as "Ochsner Heroes:"1

A. Jason Hayes, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

B. Christy Beckwith, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

C. Jordon Bogan, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier Parish;

D. William Booth, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier
Parrish;

E. Rosa Booth, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

F. Wilbert Brown, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

G. Gloria Brown, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

H. Shawn Chellette, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

I. Sarah Craig, Surgical Technician, a person of the full age of majority, residing
in Bossier Parish;

J. Anita Davis, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

1 See Ochsner Heroes, OCHSNER HEALTH, https://www.ochsner.org/ochsnerheroes (last visited

Sept. 16, 2021).

1
K. Sheri Detiveaux, Certified Surgical Technician, a person of the full age of
majority, residing in Bossier Parish;
L. Kimberly Erario, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in DeSoto
Parish;

M. Cadie Franks, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier Parish;

N. Chad Hardcastle, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier
Parish;

0. Kimberly Hattaway, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Harrison

County, Texas and employed with Ochsner Shreveport;

P. Nicoleta Hayes, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

Q. John Jones, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier Parish;

R. Melissa Langley, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier
Parish;

S. Lauren Laurent, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

T. Christy Lincoln, RRT/CRT, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

U. Brian Martin, MD, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

V. Heather Miller, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier Parish;

W. Angela Nixon, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

X. Angela Pickard, LPN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

Y. Martha "Elizabeth" Golightly Quinley, Surgical Technician, a person of the full

age of majority, residing in Bossier Parish;

Z. Daphne Roberts, Surgical Technician, a person of the full age of majority,

residing in Caddo Parish;

AA. Sonya Robinette, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Red River
Parish;

BB. Brittany Rogers, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in DeSoto
Parish;

CC. Kayla Savant, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Benton Parish;

DD. Jackalin Schaffner, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier
Parish;

EE. Lisbeth Schochler, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

FF. Virginia Shamsie, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo
Parish;

GG. Milton Southall, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

2
 HH. Stephanie Statham, Certified Child Life Specialist, a person of the full age of
majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

II. Monika Thompson, NP, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Harrison,
Texas and employed with Ochsher St. Mary's

JJ. Michael Thornton, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Bossier
Parish,

KK. Melissa Volz, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;

LL. Susan Walker, RN, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish;
and

MM. Mike Wiggins, a person of the full age of majority, residing in Caddo Parish.

2.

Defendant, University Health Shreveport, LLC D/B/A Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport, is

a public private partnership, non-profit regional health system doing business in Caddo Parish,

with its principal place of business located at 1541 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA 71103.

Defendant, Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport — St. Mary Medical Center, LLC, is a public private

partnership, non-profit regional health system doing business in Caddo Parish, with its principal

place of business located at 1 St. Mary Place, Shreveport, LA 71101. Defendants may be served

through their shared registered agent, C T Corporation System, 3867 Plaza Tower Drive, Baton

Rouge, LA 70816.

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

3.

This litigation concerns two important principles, one a matter of settled Louisiana law and

the other a matter of scientific consensus and now-common knowledge among all who have

endured, and continue to endure, the pandemic.

4.

First, as matter of settled law, Louisiana citizens have an affirmative, fundamental right to

decide whether to obtain or reject medical treatment guaranteed by the state constitution, codified

in statute, and long-recognized by the courts.2

2See La. Const. art. I, § 5; La. R.S. 40:1159.7; Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So. 2d 398, 414
(La. 1989) (holding that Article 1, § 5 establishes an "affirmative" right to decide whether to obtain
or reject medical treatment) and its progeny. See also Snider v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co.,
2013-0579 (La. 12/10/13); 130 So. 3d 922, 930 ("The informed consent doctrine is based on the
principle that every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall
be done to his or her own body.").

3
 5.

Second, as a matter of settled science and common knowledge, the vaccines for COVID-

19 do not prevent transmission of the disease. As recently stated by Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, UCLA

professor of medicine and Florida Surgeon General:

• "As clinical studies from the U.S., Israel, and Qatar show—and many Americans
can now personally attest—there is substantial evidence that people who are
vaccinated can both contract and contribute to the spread of COVID-19[;]"

• "People who have recovered from COVID-19 appear to have the most protection
of all[;_1"

• "Coercion [of consent for vaccination] won't work because those without
symptoms can still pass on infection[;

• "It isn't practical to punish adults who have no symptoms[; and

• "Vaccine mandates can't end the spread of the virus as effectiveness [of vaccines]
decline[] and new variants emerge."

See Joseph A. Ladapo, MD., Vaccine Mandates Can't Stop Covid's Spread, THE WALL

STREET JOURNAL (Sept. 17, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-covid-19-

unvaccinated -breakthrough-delta-boosters-fluvoxamine-antibodies-11631820572.

6.

Nevertheless, Defendants are attempting to force Plaintiffs to undergo vaccination for

COVID-19 over their personal objections and in disregard of their uniquely well-informed

understanding of the virus and treatment options. In the best possible light, it is a misguided effort

to protect unvaccinated persons from themselves and participate in a public policy designed to

increase vaccinations at large. Viewed for what it is, Defendants are attempting to coerce Plaintiffs'

consent to medical treatment by threatening to punish their exercise of a fundamental right under

the pretext of workplace safety.

7.

This litigation presents an unprecedented contest between the fundamental right of persons

under Louisiana law to make informed decisions regarding medical treatment and the actions of

an employer to manipulate those decisions through workplace restrictions designed to promote

public policy outside the workplace.

4
 8.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the unlawful mandate.

FACTS

A. From Novelty and Fear to Informed Decision-Making

9.

It is the legal and moral responsibility of medical providers to educate patients regarding

the potential benefits and risks of medical treatment. This responsibility is required by statute (see

La. R.S. 40:1159.1 et seq., Louisiana Medical Consent Law) and rooted in the right to individual

privacy under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of Louisiana.

10.

Obtaining informed consent to medical treatment is an individualized process and cannot

be accomplished by generalizations or mandates. As explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court,

"Without pertinent case-specific information patients would lack the capacity to reason and make

judgments on their own. They would therefore be deprived of the freedom to personally decide

intelligently, voluntarily and without coercion whether to undergo the recommended treatment."

Snider, 130 So. 3d at 930 n.7.

11.

In the early phase of the "novel"3 COVID-19 pandemic, there was little information

available to healthcare providers concerning the virus on which to advise patients. Thus, treatment

recommendations were heavily influenced by a better-safe-than-sorry approach, rather than a

traditional risks-benefits analysis based on mature medical science. This is no longer necessary.

12.

Information gained from over 225,000,000 cases of COVID-19 worldwide and a trove of

authoritative sources has revealed certain indisputable truths about COVID-19:

a. First and foremost, "COVID-19 is an endemic respiratory virus, it cannot be

eliminated or eradicated[T4

3 COVID-19 was labeled "novel" soon after the first reports of infection, and the description
became a fixture for describing the disease. See Novel Pandemic, FEMA, https://community
.fema.gov/ProtectiveActions/s/article/Novel-Pandemic-When (last visited Sept. 16, 2021) ("A
novel (new) virus, like Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19), can emerge from anywhere and
quickly spread around the world. It is hard to predict when or where the next novel pandemic will
emerge.").

4 Dr. Amesh Adalja, Science prevailed in FDA advisers rejecting COVID-19 boosters for
everyone, MSN (Sept. 18, 2021), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/science-prevailed-in-
fda-advisers-rejecting-covid-19-boosters-for-everyone/ar-AA0Ae6I.

5
 b. The virus is highly transmittable, spreading like wildfire around the globe despite
unprecedented efforts to slow transmission;

c. The severity of symptoms and the risk of severe disease from exposure vary by
patient population and is largely dependent on individual health and resiliency;

d. Immunity can be obtained naturally, by recovery from the virus, and by

administration of vaccines; and

e. There are multiple therapeutic options.

13.

Healthcare providers are now able to inform patients about the disease and treatment

options based on known risks, benefits, and alternatives.

B. The COVID-19 Vaccines

14.

Among the open issues concerning COVID-19 is the subject of vaccines, including the

individual benefits and risks in general and as measured against, and in addition to, natural

immunity. There are thousands of authoritative opinions on the subject, many directly at odds.

Although some healthcare experts and public officials appear to have made-up (if not closed) their

minds regarding the benefits and risks of the vaccines, most have not. Suffice it to say, there is a

raging debate and the outcome is uncertain at this time.

15.

There is no one-size-fits-all recommendation for patients contemplating vaccination for

COVID-19. As explained by medical commentator Dr. Marc Siegel, "'Follow the science' is an

expression that has been overused and misused by politicians and the news media during the

COVID pandemic, even as they jump to non-scientific conclusions." Dr. Marc Siegel, 'Follow the

science' is complicated when it comes to who gets a COVID vaccine and when, YAHOO! (Dec. 19,

2020),https://ca.sports.yahoo.comrnews/science-complicated-comes-gets-covid-100011510.html .

16.

Blind or biased advocacy is irresponsible and threatens the public's confidence in the

relationship between healthcare providers and patients. See Alex Berezo, PhD, and Josh Bloom,

Coronavirus: Five Reasons Public Health Experts Have Lost Credibility, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON

SCIENCE AND HEALTH (July 16, 2020), https://www.acsh.orgrnews/2020/07/16/coronavirus-five-

reasons-public -health-experts-have-lost-credibility-14915.

6
 17.

In 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted "Emergency Use

Approval" (EUA) for three COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States:

Pfizer-BioNTech (two-dose vaccine);

Moderna (two-dose vaccine); and

Janssen (Johnson & Johnson, one-dose vaccine)

(collectively, the "COVID Vaccines").5

18.

Early promotions about the benefits of the COVID Vaccines were overstated.

19.

First, contrary to early reports, it has been proven that the COVID Vaccines do not prevent

transmission of the virus.6 President Biden's hasty assurance earlier this year that "If you're fully

vaccinated you can take your mask off' quickly unraveled after several high-profile outbreaks

involving vaccinated persons. One of those outbreaks, reported by the CDC, involved 346 fully

vaccinated persons (of a total 469),7 leading the CDC to issue "updated guidance" on July 27

recommending that everyone—vaccinated and unvaccinated—wear a mask in high transmission

areas.8 On August 26, the CDC issued guidance on the "Delta variant," reporting that Ifjully

vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others."9

5 On August 23, 2021, the FDA granted full approval of the Pfizer-Comirnaty vaccine marketed
in Europe, and declared it "interchangeable" with the Pfizer-BioNTech marketed in the U.S.
Pfizer-BioNTech, itself, has not been fully approved and continues under the EUA designation. It
is not clear how the Pfizer-Comirnaty "full approval" actually impacts the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA
designation. See Glenn Kessler, The False Claim that Fully Approved Pfizer Vaccine Lacks
Liability Protection, THE WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 30, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com
/politics/2021/08/30/false-claim-that-fully-approved-pfizer-vaccine-lacks-1iability-protection/.

6 See Joseph A Ladapo, MD., Vaccine Mandates Can't Stop Covid's Spread, THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL (Sept. 17, 221), https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-covid-19-unvaccinated-
breakthrough-delta-boosters-fluvoxamine-antibodies-11631820572.

7 See Catherine M. Brown, DVM, Johanna Vostok, MPH, et al., Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2
Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public
Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
AND PREVENTION (July 30, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wrimm7031e2.htm.
8 See Interim Public Health Recommendationsfor Fully Vaccinated People, CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully -
vaccinated-guidance.html (last updated Sept. 1, 2021).

9 See Delta Variant: What We Know About the Science, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND
PREvENTIoN,https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html (last visited
Sept. 16, 2021).

7
 20.

Public officials quickly responded to the CDC's call for retreat on the claim that the

vaccines prevent transmissions. On August 2, 2021, Louisiana Governor Jon Bel Edwards re-

instituted a mask mandate in Louisiana. At the news conference, the Governor emphasized that

the COVID Vaccines do not prevent transmission, stating: "Based on recent CDC data, vaccinated

people who do get infected have just as much virus in their systems as unvaccinated people,

meaning they can likely spread the virus simply because of the power of the Delta variant." The

Governor's top health advisor, Dr. Joseph Kanter, added: "[I]f you are fully vaccinated and do

become infected, then you can still relatively transmit the virus" and that "you will have just as

much virus in your body as the early days of the pandemic as someone who was unvaccinated."1°

21.

Second, the Covid Vaccines are not as effective as originally promoted, as the latest study

now confirms. See Pfizer vaccine 's protection wanes over time, and not because of Delta, study

says https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/pfizer-vaccines-protection-wanes-over-time-

and-not-because-of-delta-study-says/ar-AAP8Esh?li=BBnb7Kz (Oct. 5, 2021) ("Research

conducted in Southern California has confirmed the dramatic erosion of the Pfizer-BioNTech

COVID-19 vaccine's protection against 'breakthrough' coronavirus infections"). As explained by

Dr. Ladapo, "The data show that vaccine effectiveness for infection protection fell from roughly

91% to 66% after emergence of the Delta variant, according to a recent CDC report. Data from

Israel show rates of protection have declined to less than 40% of some patients."11

1° Gov. Edwards Press Conference 08/02/2021, LOUISIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING, https://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=UzxWZ8qe0oU (last visited Sept. 16, 2021).

11 Ladapo, supra at n.7. See also COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness changing with Delta
predominance, MEDICAL )(PRESS, https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-covid-vaccine-effect
iveness-delta-predominance.html (last visited Sept. 16, 2021); Kevin Stankiewicz, Pfizer's CEO
says Covid vaccine effectiveness drops to 84% after six months, CNBC (July 28, 2021),
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pfizers-ceo-says-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-to-84perc
ent-after-six-months.html; Dr. Catherine Schuster-Bruce, Moderna says a study showed falling
COVID-19 immunity over time and a need for boosters - even though most 'breakthrough'
infections weren't severe, MSN, https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-says-a-
study-showed-falling-covid-19-immunity-over-time-and-a-need-for-boosters-even-though-most-
breakthrough-infectio ns-werent-severe/ar-AA0vzNi?li=BBnb7Kz (last visited Sept. 16, 2021).
See also Jo Craven McGinty, Some vaccines last a lifetime. Here's why COVID-19 vaccines don't,
WALL STREET JOURNAL, https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-vaccines-last-a-lifetime-heres-why-
covid-19-shots-dont-11631266201 (last updated Sept. 10, 2021).

8
 22.

On September 20, 2021, the widespread use of boosters encountered a setback when an

FDA committee voted 16-2 to limit boosters to patients 65 and older. As reported in The

Washington Post:

The recommendation to target shots primarily to older adults is far narrower than
what the companies and top officials in the Biden administration had sought: a
blanket approval to boost anyone 16 and older. The panel voted resoundingly
against a broadly available booster. Many committee members said they felt
uncomfortable about whether the benefits outweighed the risks to younger adults,
citing the lack of robust safety data.I2

23.

Additionally, the majority of emerging data clearly supports that natural immunity may

provide superior protection than the COVID Vaccines, contrary to earlier reports. Last month, the

CDC reported that a study from Kentucky involving 246 patients demonstrated that vaccinated

patients are 2.34 times less likely to be reinfected than persons with natural immunity.I3

24.

However, two weeks later, a study from Israel involving 74,000 cases reported just the

opposite, that "natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection,

symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared

to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."14 According to the Israeli study, a person

with natural immunity is 27 times less likely to be reinfected than a vaccinated person. Id.

25.

In addition, a recent study by Rockefeller University supports that natural immunity has

superior durability when comparing "memory B" cells produced in response to both infection and

the vaccines. As explained by Dr. Michel C. Nussenzweig, Senior Physician Investigator at the

Howard Hughes Medical Institute: "Vaccination produces greater amounts of circulating

antibodies than natural infection. But [the Rockefeller] study suggest that not all memory B cells

12 Carolyn Y. Johnson, FDA panel endorses coronavirus boosters for older adults and those at
risk of serious illness, THE WASHINGTON POST (Sept. 17, 2021), https://www.washing
tonpost.com/health/2021/09/17/covid-booster-shots-fda-recommendation/.

13 See New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection,
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/
s0806-vaccination-protection.html (last updated Aug. 6, 2021).

14 Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, et al., Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-
induced immunity: reinfection versus breakthrough infections, MEDRXIV (Aug. 30, 2021),
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/20 21.08.24.21262415v1.

9
are created equal. While vaccination gives rise to memory B cells that evolve over a few weeks,

natural infection births memory B cells that continue to evolve over several months, producing

highly potent antibodies adept at eliminating even viral variants."15

26.

These authoritative reports reflect that "[p]eople who have recovered from COVID-19

appear to have the most protection of all." Lapado, supra at n.7.

27.

The CDC has been ambivalent regarding natural immunity, leading to harsh criticism in

the medical community and by public officials.16

28.

There are three tiers for vaccine effectiveness, as explained in Some vaccines last a lifetime.

Here's why COVID-19 vaccines don't:

The goal of a vaccine is to provide the protection afforded by natural infection, but
without the risk of serious illness or death. "A really good vaccine makes it so
someone does not get infected even if they are exposed to the virus," said Rustom
Antia, a biology professor at Emory University who studies immune responses.
"But not all vaccines are ideal." The three tiers of defense, he said include full
protection against infection and transmission; protection against serious illness and
transmission; or protection against serious illness only.17

29.

Initial reports placed the COVID Vaccines in the middle tier—protection against serious

illness and transmission. But it is now clear they belong in the lower tier—protection against

15 See Dr. Michel C. Nussenzweig, Senior Physician, Natural infection versus vaccination:
Differences in COVID antibody responses emerge, THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY (Aug. 24,
2021), https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30919-natural-infection-vers us-vaccination-differences
-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/. See also, Natural Immunity After Covid-19 Found Durable
and Robust, PRECISION VACCINATIONS, https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/natural-
immunity-after-covid-19-found-durable-and-robust (last updated Aug. 2, 2021); Lasting immunity
found after recovery from COVID-19, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH (Jan. 26, 2021),
https://www.nih.govinews-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-
covid-19.

16 See Marty Makary, Covid Confusion at the CDC, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sept. 13, 2021),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-breakthrough-vaccine-natural-immunity-cdc
-fauci-biden-failure-11631548306; see also U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, Letter to Anthony S. Fauci,
M.D., Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., MPH, and Janet Woodcock, M.D. (Sept. 1, 2021),
https://www.scribd.com/document/525650771/2021-09-15-Letter-From-Sen-Johnson-to-Drs-
Fauci-Walensky-And-Woodcock#from embed. ("This administration's decision to disregard the
effectiveness of natural immunity and demand vaccination ignores current data and is an assault
on all American's civil liberties").

17 Jo Craven McGinty, Some vaccines last a lifetime. Here's why Covid-19 Shots Don't, THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL, supra.

10
serious illness only. This classification matters greatly for purposes of the Ochsner Mandate, which

relies primarily on safety in the workplace as a pretext.

30.

On the other side of the benefits-risks scale, the COVID Vaccines pose certain risks that

vary from patient to patient depending on many factors, like all vaccines. Most are non-life

threatening and considered mild, but some are severe. Gross percentages are misleading, because

the risk of an adverse reaction is always 100% for the unfortunate patient who actually suffers an

adverse reaction.

31.

In 1990, Congress created the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) to

track reports of adverse reactions resulting from vaccination. According to VAERS, the reports of

adverse reactions to the COVID Vaccines in only eight months is disproportionately higher—by

far—than for all other vaccines since 1990:

Event COVID-19 All other TOTAL Percentage of total

Vaccine vaccines events attributed to
Covid-19 Vaccine
Total Adverse Events 538,304 719,012 1,257,316 42.81%
Deaths 6,549 5,108 11,657 46.18%
Life Threatening 8,259 9,699 17,958 45.99%
Hospitalizations 30,394 38,100 68,494 44.37%
Permanent Disabilities 7,618 12,412 20,030 38.03%
Office Visits 99,471 41,506 140,977 70.56%
ER Visits 67,960 200,635 268,595 25.30%

See About the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

AND PREVENTION, https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html (last visited Sept. 16, 2021).

32.

VAERS provides important information regarding the risks of vaccinations by giving

perspective to boilerplate language like "safe and effective" and "rare side effects," as assured by

Ochsner regarding the COVID Vaccines.

C. The Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan

33.

On August 24, 2021, Ochsner announced a "Mandatory Vaccination Plan" (hereafter

"Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan") for all physicians, APPs and all employees, vendors,

11
contracted staff, medical and allied health students, residents, fellows and agency requiring

vaccinations by October 29, 2021, under pain of job loss, suspension, loss of benefits, and stigma.

Exhibit A. See Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at 6 ("Any employee, leader or provider who

does not receive the vaccination within the specified timeline and who has not received an

approved exemption or deferral will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.").

Exhibit B. See also "Workforce COVID-19 Vaccination." Exhibit C.

34.

Ochsner set a deadline of September 22, 2012 for requests for medical and religious

exemptions based on criteria established by Ochsner. To mitigate the risk of termination, 33 of

the 39 Plaintiffs submitted a request for exemption. To date, 22 exemptions have been granted,18

two have been denied,19 and the status of 8 is unknown. All Plaintiffs object to the arbitrary and

unnecessary invocation of religion to protect rights guaranteed by law.

35.

To meet the October 29 deadline, employees must receive the first shot by October 8,

2021. See COVID-19 Vaccines that Require 2 Shots, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus

/2019-ncov/vaccines/second-shot.html (last updated Sept. 13, 2021) ("Timing of your Second

Shot: Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine Get Your second shot 3 weeks (or 21 days) after your

first.").

36.

According to the announcement, the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan was developed

in July, but withheld pending FDA approval of the COVID Vaccines. Ochsner points to the

18 The following Plaintiffs were granted religious exemptions: Jordon Bogan, RN; William
Booth, RN; Rosa Booth; Shawn Chellette, RN; Sarah Craig, Surgical Technician, Anita Davis;
RN, Sheri Detiveaux, Certified Surgical Technician; Kimberly Erario, RN; Cadie Franks, RN;
Nicoleta Hayes; Melissa Langley, RN; Lauren Laurent, RN; Heather Miller; Angela Nixon, RN;
Angela Pickard, LPN; Martha "Elizabeth" Golightly Quinley, Surgical Technician; Sonya
Robinette, RN; Brittany Rogers, RN; Kayla Savant, RN; Lisbeth Schochler, RN; Stephanie
Statham, Certified Child Life Specialist; and Susan Walker, RN. These exemptions are
temporary and conditional, at Ochsner's whim.

The following Plaintiffs were denied religious exemptions: Jason Hayes & Kimberly
19
Hattaway.

12
"announcement of full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine" as the trigger for "moving forward"

now.20

37.

Ochsner's reasons for requiring the vaccine are explained as follows:

Why is Ochsner mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for employees and providers?

As healthcare professionals, it is our responsibility to provide the highest

quality care in the safest possible environment for both patients and
employees. We will continue to put our Patients First while also taking steps
to protect our colleagues, families and communities from unnecessary
exposure to COVID-19.

Unvaccinated healthcare workers not only put themselves at risk, but

without mitigation efforts also pose a risk to the patients they care for and
their colleagues.

Regulatory bodies such as the EEOC and OSHA have approved employer
mandates for employee vaccination, and recent case law has affirmed this
position.

We know the vaccine is critically important to saving lives and ending the
COVID-19 pandemic. As industry leaders, we must serve as role models in
our communities.

The data has proven the COVID-19 vaccination to be safe and effective,
with rare serious side effects. More than 350 million vaccines have been
given in the United States alone with few severe reactions.

See Exhibit B, FAQ at 1.

38.

Ochsner makes no attempt to explain how requiring vaccination of workers will improve

the safety of the work environment for patients or staff, given that the COVID Vaccines do not

prevent transmission, as now admitted by the CDC, the President, the Governor, and nearly all

authoritative sources. Further, testing of employees is a far more effective, and less intrusive,

means of protecting the workplace. If the objective is to protect patients and staff from exposure

to infection, why not simply require testing and bar infected persons from the hospital during

quarantine?

39.

Ochsner is plainly using workplace safety as a mere pretext for other objectives.

20 The "full FDA approval" referenced in the announcement was for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine,
which is not yet available for Ochsner's employees. To be clear, the emergency-use vaccines are
the only vaccines available to Plaintiffs within the deadlines imposed by the Ochsner mandate.
The extent to which full approval for Pfizer Comirnaty constitutes full approval for Pfizer-
BioNTech is debatable.

13
 40.

There are only two genuine reasons for the mandate in Ochsner's laundry list of reasons:

(1) to prevent employees from putting "themselves at risk" and (2) to participate in the public

health crusade of "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" by taking action "[a]s industry leaders" and

"role models in our community." Neither provides a lawful basis to over-ride Plaintiffs' rights to

make private decisions regarding personal medical treatment.

41.

In addition to the use of economic duress, Ochsner expressly employs the use of stigma

and ridicule to drive the mandate, requiring employees to place their vaccination status on public

display.

How will I know if others are vaccinated?

• Unvaccinated employees are required to wear an KN95 mask until they

have completed their vaccine series.

• All vaccinated employees will wear a proof of vaccination sticker on their

employee ID badge in a green badge holder.

Exhibit B, FAQ at 10. This requirement of the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan was instituted

August 17, 2021, and is being actively enforced.

42.

Ochsner's Mandatory Vaccination Plan makes no exception for employees who have

already recovered from the virus and are thus naturally immune. The abject avoidance of this

basic principle of immunology demonstrates that Defendants' actions are more about public

policy metrics than personal healthcare.

43.

Mandating persons to undergo vaccination for a disease they have already survived is

unprecedented and reckless.

44.

The information provided by Ochsner regarding the benefits and risks of the COVID

Vaccines is incomplete and partially inaccurate. While emphasizing that the vaccines are safe and

effective (see FAQ at 10), Ochsner omits any mention of the VAERS data, the lack of long-term

trials or potential for long-term risks, or the many anecdotal accounts of adverse reactions.

14
 45.

Remarkably, Ochsner recently announced an additional coercive component to the

Vaccination Plan directed to employee spouses. Beginning in January 2022, employees will be

charged a special $100 per-pay-period fee for unvaccinated spouses covered under Ochsner's

health insurance program. See Ochsner LSU Health, "Spousal Covid Vaccine Fee," Exhibit D.

46.

This fee, according to Ochsner, is implemented because "[Ochsner] believes it must lead

by example. [Ochsner] ha[s] an obligation to protect the health and well-being of our people—

which by extension includes their families[.]" And "Bottom Line: This is the right thing for us to

do[.]" Id.

47

Plaintiffs object to Ochsner's Mandatory Vaccination Plan. But to be clear, this objection

is directed to the mandate itself, not to the COVID Vaccines.

48.

Whether or not to vaccinate for COVID-19 is a personal decision, not a matter to be decided

by a private employer attempting to drive public policy.

COUNT I - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

49.

Plaintiffs adopt and re-urge the allegations and information in Paragraphs 1-49, above.

50.

"Courts of record within their respective jurisdiction may declare rights, status, and other

legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." La. C.C.P. art. 1871.

Declaratory judgment is proper to determine "any question of construction or validity arising under

the ... statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder" (La.

C.C.P. art. 1872) in order to "remove the uncertainty or terminate the dispute." Louisiana

Associated Gen. Contrs. v. State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of State Purchasing, 95-2105 (La.

3/8/96); 669 So. 2d 1185, 1191.

51.

Plaintiffs have a clearly established right to refuse medical treatment rooted in the

constitution, codified by statute, and recognized by the courts.

15
 52.

Article 1, § 5, of the Louisiana Constitution, titled "Right to Privacy," provides: "Every

person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy." La. Const. art. I, § 5. It has been well-

settled for over thirty years that this provision establishes the affirmative right to decide whether

to obtain or reject medical treatment, as expressly held by Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So. 2d

398, 414 (La. 1989). This right is not a mere limitation on state action. See Moresi v. State, Dept.

of Wildlife and Fisheries, 567 So.3d 1081, 1093 (La. 1990) (the omission of the expression "no

law shall" in Article 1, § 5 "indicat[es] that the protection goes beyond limiting state action."). See

also Snider v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 2013-0579, p. 8 (La. 12/10/13); 130 So.3d 922, 930

("The informed consent doctrine is based on the principle that every human being of adult years

and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done to his or her own body."

53.

In addition, the Louisiana Medical Consent Law expressly preserves the right to refuse

medical care:

Right of adult to refuse treatment as to his own person not abridged

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to abridge any right of a person

eighteen years of age or over to refuse to consent to medical or surgical treatment
as to his own person.

La. R.S. 40:1159.7. See Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 05-1095 (La. 3/10/06); 923 So. 2d

627, 635-36; Roberson v. Provident House, 576 So. 2d 992 (La. 1991); Manuel v. State, 95-2189,

p. 17 (La. 3/8/96); 692 So. 2d 320, 331, n.10.21

54.

Moreover, Louisiana law recognizes a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on the

"right to be let alone." Tate v. Woman's Hosp. Foundation, 2010-0425 (La. 1/19/11); 56 So. 3d

194, 197 (emphasis added). Violation of this right may occur in multiple ways, including "by

unreasonably intruding on [a person's] physical solitude or seclusion" and by the "unreasonable

disclosure of private facts." Id. The reasonableness of the defendants' conduct is determined by

balancing the conflicting interests at stake, the plaintiffs interest in protecting his privacy from

21This right is also codified in the Louisiana Advanced Directive statute, La. R.S. 40:1151.2, the
Louisiana Military Advance Medical Directive statute, La. R.S. 40:1153.2, and the Nursing Home
Bill of Rights, La. R.S. 40:2010.8(6).

16
serious invasions, and the defendants' interest in pursuing his course of conduct. Jaubert v.

Crowley Post—Signal, Inc., 375 So. 2d 1386 (La. 1979).

55.

It is unlawful for an employer to threaten to fire an employee for exercising a legal right,

or to require an employee to forego the exercise of a legal right as a condition of employment.

"An employee cannot be discharged in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions." Page

v. Grambling State University, 98-31240 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98); 722 So.3d 329, 331); Newsom

v. Glob. Data Sys., Inc., 2012-412, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/12/12); 107 So. 3d 781, 785, writ

denied, 2013-0429 (La. 4/5/13); 110 So. 3d 595 (An employer may terminate an at-will employee

provided such action "does not violate any statutory or constitutional provision.").

56.

Defendants' Mandatory Vaccination Plan is intended to coerce Plaintiffs' informed consent

to medical treatment; to wrongly manipulate an affirmative constitutional and statutory right.

57.

Defendants' stated reasons for the policy are unreasonable. First and foremost, protecting

an employee from the consequences of his or her own healthcare decision is patently unreasonable.

There is no legitimate interest in an employer attempting to override a personal healthcare decision

of an employee. Second, vaccinations will not prevent the spread of the virus in the workplace,

according to overwhelming current medical science and proven by continuation of government

mask mandates for everyone. Third, Ochsner's high-minded view of its civic responsibility does

not provide a reasonable basis for threatening to punish employees for exercising a clearly

established legal right. The good intentions of aprivate employer to influence public policy—right

or wrong—must yield to the fundamental rights of its employees.

58.

Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan unlawful

and unenforceable.

COUNT II — INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMENANT INJUCTION

59.

Plaintiffs adopt and re-urge the allegations and information in Paragraphs 1-59 above.

17
 60.

Under La. C.C.P. art. 3601, lamn injunction shall be issued in cases where irreparable

injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant[1"Newburger v. Orkin, L.L.C., 2019-

383, p. 7 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19); 283 So. 3d 549, 554. "Irreparable harm or injury generally

refers to a loss that cannot be adequately compensated in money damages or measured by a

pecuniary standard." Id.

61.

"A petitioner is entitled to injunctive relief without the requisite showing of irreparable

injury when the conduct sought to be restrained is unconstitutional or unlawful, i.e., when the

conduct sought to be enjoined constitutes a direct violation of a prohibitory law and/or a violation

of a constitutional right. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 555 So. 2d

1370 (La.1990). Once a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the conduct to be enjoined

is reprobated by law, the petitioner is entitled to injunctive relief without the necessity of showing

that no other adequate legal remedy exists." Jurisich v. Jenkins, 99-0076, p. 4 (La. 10/19/99); 749

So. 2d 597, 599-600.

A. Temporary Restraining Order

62.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3603 provides for issuance of a temporary

restraining order without notice when:

(1) It clearly appears from specific facts shown by a verified petition or by

supporting affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in
opposition, and

(2) The applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts which have
been made to give the notice or the reasons supporting his claim that notice should
not be required.

B. The verification or the affidavit may be made by the plaintiff, or by his counsel,
or by his agent.

63.

"A TRO serves only as a temporary restraint on the defendant until the propriety of granting

a preliminary injunction may be determined, objectively preserving the status quo until that

determination. Powell v. Cox, 228 La. 703, 83 So. 2d 908, 910 (1955). It is issued preliminary to

a hearing and wholly independent from the hearing on a preliminary injunction. Id. A TRO does

not determine any controverted right, but issues as a preventative to a threatened wrong and

18
operates as a restraint to protect the rights of all parties involved until issues and equities can be

resolved in a proper subsequent proceeding. Id." Dauphine v. Carencro High Sch., 2002-2005, p.

6 (La. 4/21/03); 843 So. 2d 1096, 1102.

64.

TRO is sought for Plaintiffs who have not been granted a religious exemption.22

65.

Entry of a TRO without formal notice is warranted in this instance. First, Ochsner has

already begun stigmatizing unvaccinated employees, including those granted a religious

exemption, as part of its effort to coerce consent. Second, the delays for formal service and for

responsive pleadings may prevent non-exempt Plaintiffs from complying with the October 29

deadline under the mandate due to the required vaccination dose schedules. Third, the balance of

interests favors issuance of a TRO in this instance, as relieving Plaintiffs of Defendants' oppressive

demands will cause no harm to Defendants during the duration of the TRO.

66.

A bond should not be required in this instance, as entry of a TRO poses no threat of damage

or hardship to Defendants.

B. Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

67.

"The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo until trial on merits].]"

Broadmoor, L.L.C. v. Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall Auth., 2004-0211, p. 5 (La.

3/18/04); 867 So. 2d 651, 655.

68.

"A moving party is entitled to a preliminary injunction upon showing: (1) that the injury,

loss, or damage he will suffer if the injunction is not issued may be irreparable; (2) that he is

entitled to the relief sought; and (3) that he will be likely to prevail on the merits of the case."

Succession ofSmith v. Portie, 2019-283, p.4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/30/19); 289 So. 3d 77, 80 (quoting

St. Raymond v. City of New Orleans, 99-2438, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/17/00); 769 So. 2d 562, 564

22The non-exempted Plaintiffs are: Jason Hayes; Kimberly Hattaway; Christy Beckwith, RN;
Wilbert Brown; Gloria Brown; Chad Hardcastle, RN; John Jones; Christy Lincoln, RRT/CRT;
Brian Martin, MD; Daphne Roberts, Surgical Technician, Jackalin Schaffner, RN; Virginia
Shamsie, RN; Milton Southall; Monika Thompson, NP; Michael Thornton, RN; Melissa Volz,
RN; and Mike Wiggins.

19
rehearing denied 99-2438 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/2/00), 775 So. 2d 31, writ denied 00-2565 (La.

9/13/00), 767 So. 2d 697). Because it involves temporary relief pending a full trial on the merits,

a "preliminary injunction requires less proof than is required in an ordinary proceeding for

permanent injunction." Succession of Smith, 289 So. 3d at 80 (quoting Breaud v. Amato, 94-1054,

p. 5 (La .App. 5 Cir. 5/30/95); 657 So. 2d 1337, 1339). Plaintiff need only demonstrate "a prima

facie showing" that he is entitled to relief. Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 03-2220

(La.4/14/04); 875 So. 2d 22.

69.

Plaintiffs request entry of a preliminary injunction following a hearing on the matter and,

in due course, a permanent injunction following trial on the merits.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:

1. For entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, in the form presented herewith, enjoining
Defendants from enforcing the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan against the
Plaintiffs not granted exemption;

2. That this Petition be served on Defendants, University Health Shreveport, LLC D/B/A
Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport and Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport — St. Mary
Medical Center, LLC, through their Registered Agent, C T Corporation System;

3. That Defendants, University Health Shreveport, LLC D/B/A Ochsner LSU Health
Shreveport and Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport — St. Mary Medical Center, LLC, be
cited to appear, answer and respond to the same;

4. That after due proceedings had, for a Declaratory Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Defendants, University Health Shreveport, LLC D/B/A Ochsner LSU Health
Shreveport and Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport — St. Mary Medical Center, LLC,
declaring the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan unlawful and unenforceable against
Plaintiffs;

5. For the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, and thereafter a Permanent Injunction,

prohibiting enforcement of the Ochsner Mandatory Vaccination Plan against Plaintiffs;

6. That there be trial by jury on all issues as permitted by law.

Respectfully submitted,

FAIRCLOTH MELTO OBEL SH, LLC

immy R. Fairclot , Jr. (T. 20645)

'faircloth s faircl• hlaw.com
Mary Katheri 'rice (La. # 38576)
irclothlaw.com
Richard F. Norem, III (La. # 38849)
[email protected]
105 Yorktown Drive
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303
Telephone: (318) 619-7755
Facsimile: (318) 619-7744

20
 LAW OFFICE OF G. SHELLY MATURIN, II, L.L.C.
G. Shelly Maturin, II (La. #26994)
[email protected]
322 Heymann Blvd., Suite 1
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
Phone: (337) 362-3514
Fax: (337) 362-3515

BRYSON LAW FIRM, L.L.0

Angela S. Bryson (La. #20730)
[email protected]
Cary B. Bryson (La. #20731)
[email protected]
515 W. Convent Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
Phone: (337) 233-4210
Fax: (337-233-4213

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLEASE SERVE:

University Health Shreveport D/B/A

Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport
Through its Registered Agent
C T Corporation System
3867 Plaza Tower Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816

Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport —

St. Mary Medical Center, LLC
Through its Registered Agent
C T Corporation System
3867 Plaza Tower Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816

21
 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CADDO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
)
JASON HAYES, ET AL ) DOCKET NO.
)
)
VERSUS ) DIVISION
)
)
UNIVERSITY HEALTH SHREVEPORT, LLC )
D/B/A OCHSNER LSU HEALTH )
SHREVEPORT and OCHSNER LSU )
HEALTH SHREVEPORT — ST. MARY )
MEDICAL CENTER, LLC ) JUDGE
******************************************************************************

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION
PARISH OF RAPIDES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, came and appeared JIMMY R.

FAIRCLOTH, JR., counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, who being duly sworn did

depose and state that he prepared the foregoing Petition for Temporary Restraining Order,

Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions, and Declaratory Judgment, and all statements of fact

contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

MMY R. FAIR E LOT

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, Notary Public, this 5th day of October,

2021, in Alexandria, Louisiana.

\ Vi