Unpacking Post-COVID Disability: Why Long-Haul Symptoms Demand Employee Rights and Legal Recognition Now

Speaker #0: Hey, it’s Mark here, and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more. Hey, it’s Mark here, and welcome back. Today’s episode, we’re going to talk about the post-COVID-19 recovery as a disability under federal disability law. The U.S. government reports than individuals. who have recovered from COVID-19 do not have a physical disability under federal disability discrimination laws. However, this conclusion is not accurate, and you need to know why. In an article on November 18, 2022, I reported that 60% of the U.S. population, 191 million people, have a disability called either long-haul COVID-19 or recovered from COVID-19. The following information will support this legal and medical conclusion and how businesses, insurance carriers, and the federal government do not want to acknowledge it. A new study covering 5 million Americans also supports the conclusion that COVID-19 resides in the body post-infection and can lead to substantially increased risk of further medical consequences upon reinfection. The federal government regards people who have recovered from COVID-19 as non-disabled. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, the federal agency charged with the oversight and regulation of the American workplace, has stated, quote, an employee whose COVID-19 results in mild symptoms that resolve in a few weeks with no other consequences will not have an ADA disability. that could make someone eligible to receive reasonable accommodations, end quote. This is a very astounding conclusion given how little the federal government currently knows about COVID-19. We do not have a cure for COVID-19 and only limited temporary mitigation measures in the form of vaccines and boosters. The COVID-19 virus is still rampant throughout the country during this the third year of the pandemic. Yet the federal government seeks to define who has a physical disability and who does not. Why the immediate rush to define disability? Is this a financial prophylactic measure by businesses, insurance carriers, and the federal government itself? If the federal government ruled that anyone who recovered from COVID-19 is disabled, each person would be protected from discrimination bias under Title I, which covers the employment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under Title II, which covers public accommodations and local government activities, and Title III, which covers private entities, accommodations, and access to businesses. Declaring COVID-19 disease a disability for those who already have recovered would unleash an enormous economic chaos and uncertainty. The EEOC has stemmed this economic uncertainty by providing guidance that COVID-19 disease among recovered individuals is, quote, not a disability under federal disability laws. Once the EOC issues the so-called, quote, guidance, end quote, courts then cite to the guidance as a legal basis to interpret federal disability law. Once courts create precedent, other courts more likely will follow the precedent like a train derailment. Did you ever consider that lobbyists for insurance companies and businesses do not want the federal government to label people as disabled post-COVID-19 recovery? It has already happened, and you knew nothing about it. There is also another factor to consider whether persons who have recovered from COVID-19 are disabled. In this country, we have a strong federal public policy to protect against discrimination bias in employment, public accommodations, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. However, as of February 2023, I’ll be the first to assert that I have seen little to no discrimination bias cases other than long-haul COVID cases throughout the pandemic. When there is no great push to protect a group of people who have recovered from COVID-19 from discrimination bias, then there is no likelihood that the federal government will implement laws to protect against such discrimination and provide an avenue for prosecution in the courts. So why write this article or this podcast if there is no prevalence of disability discrimination bias? The rationale here is that the jury is still out. The current medical data to support the presence of COVID-19 in the body systems of a recovered U.S. population indicate the virus lays dormant post-recovery until the next wave of infection, thereby multiplying the medical consequences on the body. In a study published in Nature.com, discussed later on in this podcast and article, provides disturbing evidence based on sampling of more than 5 million Americans. Based on this study, I argue that post-COVID-19 recovery population is disabled because their body systems, the immune systems, among many others, are still substantially limited. In fact, the study found a substantial increased risk of medical consequences due to COVID-19 reinfection of pulmonary, cardiovascular, hematological, diabetes, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, muscle skeletal, and neurological disorders. So much so that the authors of the study warned strongly against reinfection. The case of long-haul COVID. The discussion about COVID-19 as a disability would not be complete unless we address long-haul COVID-19 and how the federal government handles the condition. A study from the University of Southern California in July of 2022 found that 23% of people infected with COVID-19 will become long haulers, with symptoms lasting for months. We already know that 191 million people living in the U.S. contracted COVID-19, and 23% of them equates to an estimated 44 million people who have long haul. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burroughs said, quote, Like effects from other diseases, effects from COVID-19 can lead to a disability protected under the laws of the EOC, the EOC enforces. Workers with disabilities stemming from COVID-19 are protected from employment discrimination and may be eligible for reasonable accommodations, end quote. According to the federal government, if you have a long-haul COVID-19, you may be considered an individual with a disability under civil rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. and the Rehabilitation Act. Under these laws, someone with long-haul COVID-19 has a disability if the individual’s condition or any of its symptoms is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The Department of Health and Human Human Services has issued a statement, quote, whether an individual with long-haul COVID is substantially limited in a major bodily function or other major life activity is determined without the benefit of any medication, treatment, or other measures used by the individual to lessen or compensate for symptoms. And here’s the most important part, they said. Even if the impairment comes and goes, it is considered a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when the impairment is active. But see how this is worded. The HSS does not want to state specifically that you have a disability when COVID-19 is not active, what I call post-recovery. Why is this? Because to go further and to label individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 as disabled would force businesses, insurance carriers, and the federal government to extend money to provide services, insurance, and financial aid to many more Americans at enormous economic costs. Simply, I argue, it is all about the money. The case of the Zika virus for comparison purposes. I’m arguing that COVID-19 remains in the body undetected and should be classified as a disability in individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. This is not the first time a situation like this has occurred. One example is the Zika virus. And the federal government did ex… did in fact label the Zika virus a disability under their so-called EOC guidance. According to the EOC, the Zika virus is transmitted to people primarily through an infected species of mosquito. Mosquitoes become infected when they bite a person already infected with the virus. The virus can also spread through sexual contact and from a pregnant woman to her fetus during pregnancy or around the time of birth. Many people infected with the Zika virus experience no symptoms or only mild symptoms, which is similar to what happens in COVID. People rarely die from Zika. Zika can cause significant complications, including congenital conditions in fetuses and infants when contracted during pregnancy. The following statement will give you pause. When you compare it to the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the post-recovery status of many Americans, the EEOC said the following about the Zika virus. That should equally apply to individuals who have recovered from COVID-19, but the EEOC refuses to go further, most likely, because of the enormous financial impact on businesses, insurance carriers, and the federal government. Here’s what the EEOC said. An impairment does not have to prevent or severely significantly restrict the performance of a major activity in order to be considered substantially limited in performing activities such as caring for oneself or major bodily functions like the immune system functions are affected. Likewise, a person who has recovered from the COVID-19 virus can be disabled because they are still substantially limited in a major bodily function such as the immune system. even if the person has no symptoms. We do not know if the COVID-19 virus is adversely impacting the immune system of individuals who have recovered from the virus as the virus is lying dormant undetected within the immune system and other body systems. The following study, published in the journal nature.com in 2022, provides very alarming evidence that supports the dormancy theory and continued body system consequences. That would support the conclusion that many who have recovered from COVID-19 still have a physical disability that should be protected under federal law. The study findings stated, in part, in this study of 5 million people, including 400,000 people with first infection and 40,000 people who have reinfection, and 5 million non-infected controls, so it was important they had a control group. The study goes on to say, we showed that compared to people with no reinfection, people who had reinfection exhibited increased risks of all-cause mortality, which means death from all causes of death, hospitalization, and several pre-specified outcomes. The risks were evident in those who were unvaccinated and had one vaccination or two or more vaccinations before reinfection. Although the findings show that the reinfection further increases risk of all-cause mortality and adverse health outcomes in both the acute and post-acute phases of the reinfection, the findings highlight the clinical consequences of reinfection and emphasize the importance of preventing reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. The study also stated, furthermore, impaired health as a consequence of the first infection might result in an increased risk of adverse health consequences upon reinfection. Our results expand this evidence base and show that people who get reinfected, reinfection compared to no infection, further increases risk in both the acute and post-acute phases. And that was evident even among fully vaccinated people, suggesting that even combined a hybrid of natural immunity from previous infection and vaccine induced immunity does not abrogate the risk of adverse… health effects after reinfection, end quote. The study is then summed up by saying, of the 5 million individuals, we provide evidence that reinfection contributes to an additional health risk beyond those incurred in the first infection, including all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and consequences in a broad array of organ systems. The risks were evident in the acute and post-acute phases of reinfection. The evidence suggests… that for people who already had a first infection, prevention of the second infection may protect from additional health risks. Prevention of infection and reinfection with COVID should continue to be the goal of public policy, end quote. In conclusion, anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 should be considered disabled under the various federal laws. We should not have to wait for reinfection to explain the myriad of medical complications that may already be negatively impacting millions of Americans. Without a proper labeling of the post-COVID recovery as a disability, many Americans risk denial of medical, legal, and financial coverage associated with the initial COVID-19 infection. We are in a current state of denial and chaos created to benefit those entities and organizations who would otherwise pay out of pocket. The current system is rigged against the American public, and no one has noticed. Until now. Hope you enjoy the podcast and talk to you soon. Hey, it’s Mark, and thank you for listening to this episode of the Employee’s Fiber Guide. If you’d like to be interviewed for our podcast and share your story about what you’re going through at work and do so anonymously, please send me an email at mcaryy at capclaw.com. And also, if you like this podcast episode and others like it, please leave us a review. It really does help others find this podcast. So leave a review on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to this podcast. Thank you very much. And… Glad to be of service to you.