Poten�al Cons�tu�onal Right Viola�ons, HIPAA Viola�ons, Undue Hardship, and Medical Tyranny of proposed rules from North

Carolina Office of Occupa�onal Safety and Health within Chapter 07, Volume 38, Issue 13, North Carolina Register (January 2,
2024)

Chapter 07 in Volume 38, Issue 13, introduces proposed rules under Subchapter 07I rela�ng to Airborne Infec�ous Diseases in North
Carolina's workplaces. These rules impose requirements on employers and employees for managing airborne infec�ous diseases,
including crea�ng exposure control plans, employee educa�on, exposure controls, and recordkeeping.

The issue concerns whether the proposed rules in Chapter 07 poten�ally violate cons�tu�onal rights, HIPAA regula�ons, create
undue hardship for businesses, and could be perceived as medical tyranny.

The proposed rules include a range of measures, such as exposure control plans, mandatory training, personal protec�ve equipment,
and medical removal from the workplace. These rules are designed to be in compliance with the Occupa�onal Safety and Health Act
of North Carolina.

1. Cons�tu�onal Rights Viola�ons:

• The requirement for employers to enforce certain health measures (like face coverings, social distancing, and
poten�al medical tes�ng) could be argued as infringing on individual liber�es and autonomy, poten�ally conflic�ng
with cons�tu�onal protec�ons.

2. HIPAA Viola�ons:

• The rules regarding the removal of employees from the workplace based on their health status and the
maintenance of logs detailing employees’ health informa�on could raise concerns about privacy and confiden�ality
as s�pulated under HIPAA.

3. Undue Hardship:

• The financial and logis�cal challenges of implemen�ng these rules, especially for small and medium-sized
businesses, could cons�tute undue hardship. This includes costs associated with training, purchasing protec�ve
equipment, and modifying workspaces for social distancing.

4. Medical Tyranny:

• The term "medical tyranny" is o�en used to describe situa�ons where health-related mandates are perceived as
overly intrusive or coercive. The mandatory nature of these rules, especially in aspects like medical tes�ng and
disclosure of health status, could be viewed as an overreach of authority, poten�ally infringing on personal
freedoms and decision-making.

The proposed rules in subchapter 071, while aimed at safeguarding workplace health in the context of airborne infec�ous diseases,
significantly encroach upon cons�tu�onal rights, poten�ally violate HIPAA regula�ons, impose undue hardship on businesses, and
could be construed as an instance of medical tyranny. These rules, with their overarching mandates on health measures and personal
conduct in the workplace, appear to overstep the bounds of reasonable public health regula�on, infringing upon individual liber�es
and autonomy that are core to cons�tu�onal protec�ons. The mandatory disclosure of health informa�on and medical tes�ng
directly challenge the privacy safeguards enshrined in HIPAA, risking the confiden�ality of employee health data.

Furthermore, the financial and opera�onal burdens these rules place on businesses, especially smaller ones, are dispropor�onate,
sugges�ng an insensi�vity to the economic reali�es faced by many employers. This one-size-fits-all approach lacks the necessary
nuance and flexibility, making compliance an onerous, if not unfeasible, task for many, thereby crea�ng an environment of undue
hardship. Lastly, the compulsory nature of these health measures, par�cularly in the absence of clear thresholds or criteria for their
implementa�on and discon�nua�on, echoes concern of medical tyranny. This approach undermines personal health autonomy and
decision-making, se�ng a concerning precedent for government and employer overreach into private health maters. Considering
these issues, the proposed rules in subchapter 071 not only raise serious legal concerns but also risk eroding trust and autonomy in
the employer-employee rela�onship.

Signed: M.R. Dula