Medical malpractice claims arising from nursing home care during the COVID-19 pandemic continue to test the boundaries between provider accountability and statutory immunity. Families who lost loved ones in long-term care facilities have pursued claims alleging negligent infection control, inadequate staffing, and failures to follow public health guidance. At the same time, healthcare facilities have relied on emergency legislation enacted during the pandemic to shield themselves from civil liability. A recent New York trial decision addressed whether a nursing home was entitled to dismissal of malpractice and wrongful death claims based on pandemic-related immunity. If you have concerns about harm caused by negligent nursing home care, you should consider consulting with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand how these legal protections may affect your rights.
Case Setting
It is reported that the decedent was admitted to a New York City nursing home for short-term subacute rehabilitation following a hospitalization for a fall and altered mental status. The facility qualified as a nursing home under New York Public Health Law and provided residential medical care and rehabilitation services. During the decedent’s residency, the COVID-19 pandemic was ongoing, and the facility experienced multiple infections among residents and staff.
Allegedly, the decedent contracted COVID-19 while residing at the facility and later died from complications associated with the virus. The plaintiff alleged that the facility had a history of regulatory violations and failed to implement adequate infection control measures both before and during the pandemic. The claims asserted that deficiencies in policies, staffing, screening, isolation procedures, and overall preparedness contributed to the decedent’s infection and death.
Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced a civil action asserting claims for medical malpractice, negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering, and violations of the Public Health Law. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to comply with federal and state guidance concerning COVID-19 prevention and treatment and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
It is alleged that the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211, arguing that they were immune from civil liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment or Protection Act and under federal emergency legislation. The defendants submitted medical records and sworn affirmations from facility administrators and treating physicians to establish that the care provided to the decedent was rendered in response to the COVID-19 emergency and in compliance with evolving public health directives.
Immunity For COVID-19 Related Care
The court began its analysis by outlining the purpose and scope of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment or Protection Act, which was enacted at the outset of the pandemic to protect healthcare providers from liability arising out of COVID-19-related care. Although the statute has since been repealed, the court emphasized that it remained applicable to conduct occurring during the covered period and was not retroactively repealed.
The court explained that to qualify for immunity, a defendant must establish that it was a healthcare facility or professional providing health care services during the pandemic, that the services were rendered in accordance with applicable law or emergency rules, that the acts or omissions were impacted by decisions made in response to COVID-19, and that the care was provided in good faith without gross negligence or reckless misconduct. The court noted that immunity statutes must be strictly construed, but a defendant who satisfies these elements is entitled to dismissal at the pleading stage.
Applying those standards, the court closely examined the defendants’ evidentiary submissions. The medical records and affirmations detailed the facility’s infection control protocols, including screening, testing, isolation, cohorting of residents, use of personal protective equipment, monitoring of vital signs, and adjustments to care necessitated by pandemic conditions. The treating physician described specific medical decisions made in response to the decedent’s COVID-19 diagnosis, including monitoring for hypoxia, administration of medications, and eventual hospitalization.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that discovery was required before immunity could be determined. Unlike cases where the alleged injuries were unrelated to COVID-19, the court found that the claims here arose directly from the decedent’s contraction of the virus and subsequent death. The court concluded that the defendants established a clear link between the medical care provided and their pandemic response efforts.
The court also addressed the allegations of gross negligence, finding that the complaint relied on generalized and conclusory assertions rather than specific facts demonstrating reckless or intentional misconduct. Based on the detailed documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, the court held that the claims of gross negligence were negated as a matter of law. As a result, the court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, concluding that the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity.
Discuss Your Medical Malpractice Concerns with Rochester and Syracuse Attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano
Medical malpractice and wrongful death claims involving nursing homes and pandemic-era care raise complex legal questions about standards of care, statutory immunity, and evidentiary proof. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to substandard medical care, it is smart to talk to an attorney. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers assist families throughout Rochester, Syracuse, and across New York State in matters involving medical negligence. You can reach us at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.