`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`EL PASO DIVISION
`
`TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, §
`
`
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`§
`
`
`§
`v.
`
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________
`
`
`§
`
`
`§
`OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
`§
`HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, and
`§
`MARTY WALSH, UNITED STATES
`§
`SECRETARY OF LABOR,
`§
`
`
`§
`
`Defendants.
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Tenet Healthcare Corporation (“Tenet” or “the Company”) files this Original
`
`Complaint against Defendants Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and
`
`Marty Walsh, United States Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”), seeking a Temporary Restraining
`
`Order (“TRO”), Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions, an Order Denying Inspection Warrant,
`
`and a Declaratory Judgment.
`
`I.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Tenet is a Texas corporation having its principal place of business at
`
`14201 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas 75254.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Marty Walsh,
`
`United States Secretary of Labor, are respectively an agency and officer of the United States
`
`Department of Labor, with offices located at 4849 North Mesa, Suite 200, El Paso, Texas
`
`79912-5936.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`3:22-cv-142
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1346(a)(2) because this is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States and is against
`
`an agency or officer of the United States.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all or a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
`
`III. INTRODUCTION
`
`5.
`
`Tenet moves this Court for a temporary restraining order and further relief against
`
`Defendants OSHA and the Secretary of Labor. Tenet asks this Court to prevent OSHA from
`
`inspecting its The Hospitals of Providence Transmountain location (“THOP Transmountain”)
`
`under the auspices of a National Emphasis Program, Directive 2021-03 (CPL 03) (“NEP”), rooted
`
`in the July 7, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) that expired on December 27, 2021.
`
`An ETS is only legally valid for six months and, once expired, has no legal authority unless OSHA
`
`and the Secretary undergo and complete the process of enacting a permanent standard. Defendants
`
`have begun the rulemaking process to make the ETS into a permanent standard, but they have not
`
`completed the process and issued a permanent rule. Therefore, the NEP cannot be the basis for a
`
`lawful search warrant.
`
`IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`On March 4, 2022, Compliance Health and Safety Officer, Pedro Herrera (“CSHO
`
`Herrera”), sought to conduct an inspection of THOP Transmountain, located at 2000 Woodrow
`
`Bean Drive, El Paso, Texas 79911. Exhibit 1, Declaration of Frank Davis, Esq., ¶ 2, App. 1.
`
`Frank Davis and Jeff T. Leslie of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., conducted an
`
`opening conference with the CSHO Herrera via telephone and inquired about the basis for this
`
`inspection. Id. Four representatives for THOP Transmountain were also present at the opening
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`conference: Mario Silva (Safety Officer), Damian Campos (Administrator on Duty), Rosa Varela
`
`(Infection Prevention), and Angel Godfrey (Patient Safety Officer). Id. Mr. Davis and Mr. Leslie
`
`attempted several times to ascertain the authority under which CSHO Herrera was entitled to enter
`
`the facility. Id. at App. 2. CSHO Herrera was unable to provide a lawful reason for entry and
`
`instead, made multiple vague references to the “National Emphasis Program”. Id. When asked
`
`for the basis under the NEP, CSHO Herrera could not answer the question, but again, repeated he
`
`was there to inspect under the NEP. Id.
`
`7.
`
`On March 4, 2022, Mr. Leslie sent an email to Area Director, Diego Alvarado, and
`
`Assistant Area Director, David Arrey, informing them of the unlawful attempt to enter the facility.
`
`Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 2, App. 3; Exhibit 2A, March 4, 2022 Email from
`
`Leslie, App. 6.
`
`8.
`
`On March 7, 2022, Assistant Area Director Gabriel Nolasco (“AAD Nolasco”) sent
`
`an email to Mr. Davis and Mr. Leslie, attaching the July 7, 2021 NEP. Exhibit 2, Declaration of
`
`Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 3, App. 3, 4; Exhibit 2B, March 7, 2022 Email from Nolasco, App. 7-44.
`
`AAD Nolasco conceded that the ETS “has been cancelled,” but insisted entry to the facility based
`
`solely on the NEP. Id. at App. 7.
`
`9.
`
`On March 7, 2022, Mr. Leslie responded to AAD Nolasco seeking clarification and
`
`the rationale for OSHA’s position. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 4, App. 4;
`
`Exhibit 2C, March 7, 2022 Email from Leslie, App. 45-47. Mr. Leslie informed AAD Nolasco
`
`that the NEP is predicated on the existence of the ETS for Healthcare facilities as the enforcement
`
`mechanism, citing to the NEP pp. 3-4. Id. Mr. Leslie further alerted AAD Nolasco to the fact that
`
`the Inspection Procedures for the COVID-19 ETS is archived on OSHA’s website. Id. The NEP
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`makes no other reference to any other authority or guidance that would entitle it to conduct an
`
`inspection of a healthcare facility. Id.
`
`10.
`
`One week later, on March 14, 2022, AAD Nolasco sent an email to Mr. Leslie and
`
`Mr. Davis stating it was OSHA’s opinion that the NEP remained in effect and attached a March 3,
`
`2022 memorandum outlining three criteria for OSHA to conduct follow-up inspections on
`
`healthcare facilities. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 5, App. 4; Exhibit 2D,
`
`March 14, 2022 Email from Nolasco, App. 48-58.
`
`11.
`
`On March 15, 2022, AAD Nolasco called Mr. Leslie to discuss the basis for the
`
`inspection. Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 6, App. 4. Mr. Leslie informed AAD Nolasco
`
`that THOP Transmountain did not meet any of the three criteria for OSHA to conduct a follow-up
`
`inspection as it had not been previously cited, had not received an RRI or complaint investigation,
`
`nor had it been randomly selected for compliance with previous citations that were issued
`
`following a remote inspection. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq., ¶ 6, App. 4, 5;
`
`Exhibit 2E, March 16, 2022 Email from Leslie, App. 59, 60. AAD Nolasco admitted that was true
`
`during the call. Id. He ended the call to get clarification, and then called Mr. Leslie again and
`
`stated the inspection was under the NEP, not the memorandum. Id. Mr. Leslie again explained the
`
`NEP could not be a basis for inspection because the ETS had expired and the hospital was fully
`
`vaccinated according to the Center from Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final
`
`Rule, which is outside of OSHA’s jurisdiction. Id. THOP Transmountain is 100-percent in
`
`compliance with the CMS Vaccination Standard. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie, Esq.,
`
`¶ 7, App. 5. As a practical matter, THOP Transmountain also has zero COVID-19 patients as of
`
`April 26, 2022. Id.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
`On March 24, 2022, Mr. Leslie and Josh Bernstein, Esq., Attorney with Office of
`
`the Solicitor, discussed the matter but could not reach an agreement. Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie,
`
`Esq., ¶ 8, App. 5. On March 28, 2022, Mr. Leslie called Mr. Bernstein to offer a compromise
`
`solution to allow OSHA to inspect THOP Transmountain’s 300 logs, COVID-19 logs, and
`
`COVID-19 policies. Id. Mr. Davis and Mr. Leslie discussed the compromise with Mr. Bernstein
`
`again on April 11, 2022. Id. Mr. Bernstein declined on behalf of his client. Id. THOP
`
`Transmountain therefore now expects that OSHA will seek from this Court an inspection warrant.
`
`Id.
`
`V. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF1
`
`A.
`
`The Need for A Temporary Restraining Order.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`THOP Transmountain realleges and incorporates all allegations set forth herein.
`
`To secure a preliminary injunction order, Plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) a
`
`substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable
`
`injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunctive order might cause
`
`the Defendants; and (4) that the order will not be adverse to the public interest. Women’s Med.
`
`Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418–20 (5th Cir. 2001); Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders v. Scoreboard
`
`Posters, Inc., 600 F.2d 1184, 1187 (5th Cir. 1979); Barton v. Huerta, 2014 WL 4088582, at *1
`
`(N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2014) aff’d, 613 F. App’x 426 (5th Cir. 2015).
`
`15.
`
`THOP Transmountain requests a temporary restraining order, a preliminary
`
`injunction, and permanent injunction to prevent the unlawful inspection of its facility under the
`
`National Emphasis Program by OSHA.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to Local Rule CV-65, Plaintiff’s THOP Transmountain Motion and Application for Temporary
`Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction sets forth the application in further detail.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`16.
`
`THOP Transmountain will likely prevail on its claims, as clearly shown in this
`
`Complaint and subsequent Motion.
`
`17. Without this injunctive relief and denial of any inspection warrant, THOP
`
`Transmountain will suffer irreparable harm. Once the inspection occurs, the Company will be
`
`without legal remedy, for the federal courts and the Commission have held that citations (as
`
`opposed to penalties) cannot be vacated even if the warrant that purported to authorize an
`
`inspection, and from which the supporting evidence was derived, were later found to have been
`
`erroneously issued. Such citations have enormous collateral consequences, such as a ten-fold
`
`increase in subsequent penalties (29 U.S.C. § 666(a) (ten-fold increase for “repeated” violations),
`
`and exposure to two failure-to-abate daily penalties instead of one (29 U.S.C. § 666(d)).
`
`18.
`
`OSHA and the Secretary have no authority to inspect any company without
`
`authority to do so. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects employers
`
`from unjustified inspections. As explained above, OSHA seeks to inspect THOP-Transmountain
`
`based on its National Emphasis Program (NEP) targeting healthcare employers.
`
`19.
`
`The NEP authorizes inspection in two instances: (1) when a high number of
`
`employees in the workplace are unvaccinated; or (2) to enforce the Healthcare Emergency
`
`Temporary Standard (ETS). (June 28, 2021). OSHA has no authority to inspect THOP under
`
`either designation.
`
`a. THOP Transmountain should not be subject to inspection under the vaccination
`element because 100-percent of employees comply with the CMS Vaccination
`Rule, which preempts OSHA’s authority.
`
`20.
`
`The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an administrative
`
`rule mandating full vaccination of all employees at Transmountain. Omnibus COVID-19 Health
`
`Care Staff Vaccination, 86 Fed. Reg. 61555, pin cite (November 11, 2021). The United States
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of that rule on January 14, 2022.2 Biden v. Missouri,
`
`595 U.S. ___ (2022). THOP Transmountain is 100-percent in compliance with the CMS
`
`Vaccination Standard. Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff T. Leslie ¶ 7, App. 5.
`
`b. THOP Transmountain is not subject to inspection under the ETS because the
`temporary standard expired as a function of law on December 27, 2021.
`
`21.
`
`OSHA’s reliance on the NEP in its effort to conduct a physical inspection of the
`
`THOP facility is misplaced. The NEP directive specifically addresses enforcement of the ETS:
`
`This revised NEP cancels the original NEP issued on March 12, 2021, due to the
`issuance of OSHA’s emergency temporary standard (ETS) for COVID-19 in
`healthcare.
`
`DIR 2021–03 (CPL 03) (July 7, 2021).
`
`22.
`
`The NEP then goes on to adopt the Healthcare ETS by reference:
`
` This NEP incorporates the new ETS for COVID-19 in
`healthcare.
`
` For healthcare inspections, this NEP refers compliance safety
`and health officers (CSHOs) to the new OSHA Direction, DIR
`2021-02 (CPL 02), Inspection Procedures for the COVID-19
`Emergency Temporary Standard, June 28, 2021.
`
`Id. at ABSTRACT-3. See also Section VII: “This replacement NEP incorporates the new ETS
`
`for COVID-19 in healthcare.” Id. at p. 3.
`
`23.
`
`The OSHA Direction at DIR. 2021-02 requires CSHOs to specifically inspect for
`
`compliance with the Healthcare ETS:
`
`This new Directive establishes OSHA’s field inspection and enforcement
`procedures designed to ensure uniformity in enforcing the ETS when addressing
`workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease.
`
`DIR 2021-02 (CPL 02) (June 28, 2021).
`
`
`2 On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court rejected OSHA’s effort to establish a vaccination rule.
`National Federation of Business v. Secretary of Labor, 595 U.S. ____ (2022).
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`To resolve any ambiguity, the NEP directs OSHA to cite healthcare employers
`
`under the ETS for alleged violations:
`
`The ETS is enforceable on July 6, 2021, for most provisions, and July 21, 2021,
`for the three provisions for protective barriers, ventilation, and training. The
`provisions of the ETS will take precedence over citations of the general duty
`clause for healthcare establishments not exempt from the ETS.
`
`DIR 2021–03 at p. 16.
`
`25.
`
`Fatal to OSHA’s NEP and Directive thereunder is the fact that OSHA withdrew the
`
`non-recordkeeping portions of the ETS on December 27, 2021. See https://www.osha.gov/
`
`coronavirus/ets. Thus, the ETS cannot be used as the basis to inspect and determine whether THOP
`
`is in compliance with the temporary standard.3 The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health
`
`Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man
`
`and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human
`
`resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To this end, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (Secretary)
`
`to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards under sections 6(b) and (c) of
`
`the OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). These provisions provide bases for issuing occupational safety
`
`and health standards under the Act.
`
`26.
`
`Permanent standards under the OSH Act are subject to rule-making procedures that
`
`take many years to complete. As recognized by the Secretary in the preamble to the Healthcare
`
`ETS, the OSH Act also has an emergency provision that authorizes the Secretary to adopt
`
`emergency standards:
`
`The ETS provision, section 6(c)(1), exempts the Secretary from procedural
`requirements contained in the OSH Act and the Administrative Procedure Act,
`including those for public notice, comments, and a rulemaking hearing. See, e.g.,
`29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552, 553. For that reason, ETSs have been referred
`
`
`3 On March 28, 2022, THOP Transmountain offered to show OSHA its recordkeeping logs. OSHA declined the offer.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`to as the ``most dramatic weapon in [OSHA’s] arsenal.” Asbestos Info. Ass’n/N.
`Am. v. OSHA, 727 F.2d 415, 426 (5th Cir. 1984).
`
`27. While emergency temporary standards are a dramatic weapon in OSHA’s arsenal,
`
`they are temporary by nature and expire within six months of adoption:
`
`ETSs are, by design, temporary in nature. Under section 6(c)(3), an ETS serves
`as a proposal for a permanent standard in accordance with section 6(b) of the
`OSH Act (permanent standards), and the Act calls for the permanent standard to
`be finalized within six months after publication of the ETS. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(3);
`see Fla. Peach Growers Ass’n., 489 F.2d at 124. The ETS is effective “until
`superseded by a standard promulgated in accordance with” section 6(c)(3). 29
`U.S.C. 655(c)(2).
`
`Id. See also Taylor Diving Salvage v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 537 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1976)
`
`(“Section 6(c) of the Act was included to permit the Secretary to issue without notice or hearing
`
`Emergency Temporary Standards to be effective for no more than six (6) months.” (emphasis
`
`added)).
`
`28.
`
`To this end, the Fifth Circuit has clearly and repeatedly held OSHA’s authority to
`
`enforce an emergency temporary standard expires after six months of the temporary standard’s
`
`adoption, unless OSHA adopts a permanent standard. Asbestos Information Ass’n v. O.S.H.A, 727
`
`F.2d 415, 421 n.13 (5th Cir. 1984) (“In reviewing the ETS, we also must remain aware that the
`
`plain wording of the statute limits us to assessing the harm likely to accrue, or the grave danger
`
`that the ETS may alleviate, during the six-month period that is the life of the standard.”
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`29.
`
`Because the ETS expired on December 27, 2021 as an operation of law, and
`
`because OSHA withdrew its substantive, non-recordkeeping provisions on the same day, it cannot
`
`constitute the basis to support an inspection under the now-outdated and functionally impotent
`
`NEP as applied to healthcare facilities, such as THOP Transmountain.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`c. As an additional matter, OSHA cannot use the Section 5(a)(1)—also known as
`the General Duty Clause—as the basis to support a COVID-19-related inspection
`at THOP Transmountain.
`
`30.
`
`OSHA cannot use the General Duty Clause (“GDC”) as a basis to conduct a
`
`COVID-19 inspection of THOP. OSHA uses the GDC clause to cite employers for hazards in the
`
`workplace that are not covered by a specific health and safety standard.
`
`31.
`
`Initially, at the inception of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020, the Secretary
`
`explained OSHA did not require an ETS to protect employees in the healthcare industry:
`
`On March 18, 2020, then-OSHA Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Loren
`Sweatt responded to an inquiry from Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott,
`Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, regarding OSHA’s
`response to the COVID-19 outbreak (OSHA, March 18, 2020). In the letter, she
`stated that OSHA had “a number of existing enforcement tools” it was using to
`address COVID-19, including existing standards such as Personal Protective
`Equipment (PPE), Respiratory Protection, and Bloodborne Pathogens, as well as
`the General Duty Clause, 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1). [Hereinafter: “GDC”]. She also
`stated that OSHA was working proactively to assist employers by developing
`guidance documents. And, given the existing enforcement tools, “we currently
`see no additional benefit from an ETS in the current circumstances relating to
`COVID-19,” and “OSHA can best meet the needs of America’s workers by being
`able to rapidly respond in a flexible environment.”
`
`Letter from Assistant Secretary Loren Sweatt to Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
`
`(March 18, 2020) at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6820346-03-18-2020-Scott-RE-
`
`COVID-19-1.html.
`
`32.
`
`In 2021, the Secretary reversed his position on the issue, and began development
`
`of an ETS at the direction of President Biden. The justification for the development of the ETS
`
`explained the Secretary’s rationale:
`
`In accordance with the executive order and Secretary Walsh’s directive, OSHA
`has reviewed its May 2020 decision not to issue an ETS. For the reasons
`explained below, OSHA does not believe its prior approach--enforcement of
`existing standards and the General Duty Clause coupled with the issuance of
`nonbinding guidance--has proven over time to be adequate to `reduce the risk that
`workers may contract COVID-19” in healthcare settings. Given the grave danger
`presented by the hazard, OSHA now finds that this standard is necessary to
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`protect the healthcare employees who face the highest risk of contracting
`COVID-19 at work.
`
`Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard 86 FR 32376 (June 21,
`
`2021).
`
`33.
`
`In this case, OSHA cannot rely on the GDC to conduct any enforcement action at
`
`THOP because the Secretary of Labor previously announced the agency had no authority under
`
`the OSH Act to address COVID-19-related hazards in the workplace. That is, in the Preamble to
`
`the ETS, the Secretary explained the GDC is inadequate to address COVID-19 in the healthcare
`
`setting:
`
`Through its enforcement efforts to date, OSHA has encountered significant
`obstacles, revealing that existing standards, regulations, and the OSH Act’s
`General Duty Clause are inadequate to address the COVID-19 hazard for
`employees covered by this ETS. The agency has determined that a COVID-19
`ETS is necessary to address these inadequacies.
`
`See ETS Preamble, Section I, Executive Summary.
`
`34.
`
`As part of the justification for the ETS, the Secretary also blames low vaccination
`
`rates as a rationale for establishing the temporary standard:
`
`[A]pproximately a quarter of healthcare workers have not yet completed
`COVID-19 vaccination (King et al., April 24, 2021). Nonetheless, vaccination is
`critical in combatting COVID-19, and the standard requires employers to provide
`paid leave to employees so that they can be vaccinated and recover from any side
`effects. Additionally, certain workplaces and well-defined areas where all
`employees are fully vaccinated are exempted from all of the standard’s
`requirements, and certain fully vaccinated workers are exempted from several of
`the standard’s requirements.
`
`Id.
`
`34.
`
`Again, THOP Transmountain employees are 100-percent in compliance with the
`
`CMS Vaccination Rule, which obviates
`
`the Secretary’s rationale
`
`to
`
`inspect THOP
`
`Transmountain’s COVID-19 response.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Tenet re-alleges and incorporates all allegations set forth herein.
`
`Tenet also seeks declaratory judgment against Defendants for depriving Plaintiff of
`
`its substantive due process rights under the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
`
`and the OSH Act of 1972 because OSHA and the Secretary have violated their own rule making
`
`process by attempting to enforce the NEP which was predicated on the now-expired ETS.
`
`37.
`
`Should OSHA and the Secretary be allowed to inspect THOP Transmountain under
`
`the pretenses of the NEP, THOP Transmountain would be without remedy as the inspection cannot
`
`be corrected by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. THOP Transmountain,
`
`therefore, seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court regarding the enforcement of the NEP as
`
`a violation of THOP Transmountain’s due process rights.
`
`VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Accordingly, the Court should:
`
`a.
`
`Issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants Occupational
`
`Safety and Health Administration and Marty Walsh, Secretary of the Department of Labor,
`
`from inspecting THOP Transmountain facility, located at 2000 Woodrow Bean Dr., El
`
`Paso, Texas 79911, based on the expired ETS or the NEP.
`
`b.
`
`Issue declaratory judgment against the enforcement of the NEP based on
`
`the now-expired ETS.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Deny any ex parte request for an inspection warrant for that facility.
`
`Schedule a hearing on a preliminary and permanent injunction.
`
`Award Tenet its attorneys’ fees and costs (to be separately applied for under
`
`the Equal Access to Justice Act).
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiff is willing to post a bond should the Court deem that appropriate. Plaintiff further
`
`requests that the Court immediately grant this application for a temporary restraining order or set
`
`a hearing on this application at the earliest date and time possible.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Frank Davis
`
`FRANK D. DAVIS
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24031992
`
`frank.davis@ogletree.com
`
`JEFF T. LESLIE
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24091294
`
`jeff.leslie@ogletree.com
`
`Preston Commons West
`8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
`Dallas, Texas 75225
`(214) 987-3800 (Phone)
`(214) 987-3927 (Fax)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with Defendant’s counsel, Josh Bernstein on March 28, 2022
`and April 11, 2022. Mr. Bernstein indicated that Defendants are opposed to the relief sought.
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jeff T. Leslie
`JEFF T. LESLIE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`This is to certify that on April 26, 2022, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`pleading has been forwarded to Josh Bernstein, Esq., counsel for Defendant, 525 Griffin Street,
`Suite 501, Dallas, Texas 75202, via email.
`
` /s/ Jeff T. Leslie
`JEFF T. LESLIE
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`