HEALTH CARE WORKER SUES COUNTY OVER MASK ORDERS
Lawsuit claims insufficient evidence they prevent spread
A Palomar Health employee is suing the county to stop its order mandating residents wear facial coverings when outside, which he argues has not been proven to stop the spread of the coronavirus and violates constitutional rights.
“With new evidence and data coming to light regarding the science and severity of this specific virus, it has become ever more prevalent the requirement to wear a facial covering is not effective in stopping the spread of COVID-19,” reads the lawsuit filed in federal court Monday. “As such, the requirement to wear a face mask is overbroad and violates fundamental rights of both the United States Constitution as well as the California Constitution.”
The lawsuit names county Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten, Health and Human Services Agency Director Nick Macchione and county Chief Administrative Officer Helen Robbins-meyer as defendants.
Ashton Forbes is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, which identifies him as an employee of Palomar Health. Attorney Philip Mauriello Jr., who filed the lawsuit, declined to identify Forbes’ position.
The lawsuit states that the facial covering requirement was based on the belief that many transmissions of the disease are caused by carriers who are asymptomatic.
The suit also states that Forbes learned through his job that there are no confirmed cases of a person who had the disease but not symptoms had passed along the virus.
“We have found there is enough data to support that cloth masks and surgical masks do not effectively stop the spread of COVID-19,” Mauriello said.
County officials did not respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit, but Wooten and other local officials have said there is evidence that facial coverings could help prevent the spread of the disease.
Mauriello noted that the World Health Organization does not recommend facial coverings for healthy people unless they are caring for someone who has tested positive for COVID-19.
He also uses Wooten’s words against her in the lawsuit, which recalled that she had said in a March 15 interview that no studies at the time had found that carriers without symptoms could transmit the disease.
There are health officials who disagree, however. In response to Wooten’s comments in March, infectious disease specialist Dr. Robert “Chip” Schooley told The San Diego Union-tribune that he had reviewed a number of cases on COVID-19 that document that people without symptoms had transmitted the virus.
Mauriello agrees that public health officers have the right to enact orders to protect public health and prevent the spread of diseases, but those orders must be reasonable, free of oppression and narrowly tailored.
“Defendants have thus gone beyond their authority to enact what is ‘necessary’ to prevent the spread of COVID-19 because the science does not support the argument that facial coverings are effective in preventing the spread of this contagious disease,” the lawsuit states.
Mauriello also argues that the county mandate denies people the right to make decisions about their own health and is unconstitutional in ordering people what to do with their own bodies.
He also said the mandate denies people their constitutional right to travel.
“The requirement of Plaintiff to wear a facial covering in public when not in his residence restricts his right to travel within the County by forcing him to make a decision between wearing a facial covering which provides no medical benefit and in fact creates other collateral health risks, or remain a prisoner in his own home,” the lawsuit states. “Either choice violates essential constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.”
gary.warth@sduniontribune.com