Employers that mandated COVID-19 injections for workers can be held LIABLE for vaccine injuries, Australian court rules

It is no longer legally viable for employers in Australia that mandated Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccination” on their employees to claim immunity from liability based on the argument that they simply followed lawful government directives.

The issue came to a head after the state of South Australia rejected a youth support worker by the name of Daniel Shepherd’s claim requesting compensation for a diagnosis of vaccine-induced pericarditis following forced vaccination by his employer. Shepherd appealed the ruling, ultimately prompting the South Australian Employment Tribunal to overrule the previous decision.

The South Australian Department of Child Protection (DCP) forced Shepherd to take the injection, which resulted in serious heart damage. The DCP’s defense argument claims that while the injection did, in fact, cause Shepherd’s pericarditis, the forced needling did not “arise from employment but from a lawful State Government vaccination drive.” In other words, the Australian government is to blame.

The tribunal, however, disagreed. Refusing to let the Australian government be held exclusively liable for its own jab mandates, the tribunal decided that Shepherd’s injury came about “as a result of both [the government’s] vaccination mandate and the applicant’s employment.”

Employment, the tribunal continued in its overruling, does not have to be the “only or most significant cause” of an individual’s COVID jab injury or injuries. It only has to be a “significant contributing cause of a work injury,” the suggestion being that employers cannot simply shift all blame onto the government.

(Fact check: Most of Australia’s earliest “COVID-19 deaths” occurred in people who were “fully vaccinated” in accordance with the nation’s guidelines, state records show.)

Governments, employers both responsible for vaccine mandate injuries

Regardless of who is held responsible, Shepherd’s life is still ruined either way. He remains incapacitated and unable to perform normal daily duties, which is likewise the case for thousands of other Australian employees who were forced to choose between destroying their lives by taking the mandated jabs, or losing their jobs and livelihoods by refusing them.

Shepherd took two injections before experiencing adverse effects, prompting him to refuse any further “booster” doses. His supervisor, however, ordered Shepherd to take a third dose within four months of receiving his second injection, or else lose his job.

Shepherd reluctantly complied, only to experience severe chest pains within 24 hours of getting boosted. His pain worsened day by day over the course of several weeks until eventually he was no longer able to bear it, describing the sensation as though someone was constantly kneeling on his chest.

An ambulance ultimately had to transport Shepherd to the Ashford Hospital cardiac unit where cardiologists diagnosed him with pericarditis, likely caused by his having received a third COVID-19 jab.

To be fair, state governments did slough off enforcement of the mandates onto managers in workplaces, threatening them with harsh fines and other penalties if they refused. They could have just said no to forcing the drugs on their employees regardless, but many employers took the bait and complied. Now, both governments and employers are on the hook for injuries caused by COVID-19 jab mandates.

The tribunal’s ruling means that many more injured employees can go after their employers, including private businesses, for forcing them to take dangerous, experimental drugs as a condition of employment. There is very little chance, though, that employers will actually fess up to culpability in employee injuries.

“The DCP accepted that Shepherd had been injured by the vaccine,” writes David James for LifeSiteNews about the matter. “Businesses are unlikely to make similar admissions, given the potential sums involved.”

The COVID vaccine genocide will not go unpunished. Find out more about the latest developments on the legal front at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:

LifeSiteNews.com

NaturalNews.com