Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The COVID-19 pandemic placed extraordinary demands on hospitals and healthcare providers throughout New York, prompting lawmakers to enact temporary legal protections for medical professionals responding to the public health emergency. Those protections, however, did not automatically shield every healthcare provider from liability. Instead, courts must carefully examine whether a patient’s treatment was actually affected by pandemic-related conditions and whether the provider’s conduct falls within the statute’s scope. A recent New York decision demonstrates how courts evaluate these issues when deciding whether a medical malpractice claim may proceed. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine whether emergency immunity laws may affect your case.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital in April 2020 after experiencing fever, respiratory symptoms, and an abnormal electrocardiogram. He tested positive for COVID-19, later required mechanical ventilation, and remained hospitalized for several weeks before being discharged to a rehabilitation facility. During his hospitalization, he developed pressure ulcers and other tissue injuries. Shortly after his discharge, he returned to the hospital because of additional medical complications and again tested positive for COVID-19 before ultimately returning to rehabilitation.
Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the hospital and several physicians, asserting that they departed from accepted standards of medical care by failing to prevent and treat his pressure ulcers properly. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the plaintiff’s care occurred during the height of the COVID-19 emergency when hospital operations were significantly affected by staffing shortages, resource limitations, and emergency treatment protocols. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence and therefore fell outside the statute’s protections.
Emergency Immunity in Medical Malpractice Cases
The court examined the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which temporarily protected healthcare facilities and medical professionals from liability for certain care provided during the COVID-19 public health emergency. To establish immunity, the defendants were required to demonstrate that they acted in good faith while providing healthcare services and that the plaintiff’s treatment was impacted by decisions or conditions arising from the pandemic in support of the state’s emergency response.
The defendants supported their motion with detailed affirmations from hospital nursing administrators describing the unprecedented circumstances facing the hospital during the first wave of COVID-19. The evidence established that intensive care units operated far beyond normal capacity, nurses cared for substantially more critically ill patients than usual, specialized equipment became scarce, and additional infection-control procedures consumed significant time and resources. According to the defendants, these extraordinary conditions directly affected the hospital’s ability to implement routine pressure ulcer prevention measures.
The court concluded that this evidence satisfied the defendants’ burden of establishing entitlement to statutory immunity. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception applied. Although the plaintiff submitted expert testimony criticizing the medical care, the court determined that the opinions merely alleged departures from accepted standards of care and failed to establish conduct rising to the level of gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or other statutory exceptions. The court found the expert’s conclusions to be largely conclusory and unsupported by the medical record.
Because the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff’s treatment was directly affected by the extraordinary conditions created by the COVID-19 emergency, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support an applicable exception, the court dismissed the claims against the hospital and the moving physicians. The decision illustrates that while emergency immunity is not absolute, plaintiffs must present substantial evidence demonstrating conduct beyond ordinary medical negligence to overcome the protections afforded by the statute.
Discuss Your Claim with a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you or someone you love has suffered serious harm because of negligent medical treatment, it is advisable to talk to an attorney. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are prepared to evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and advocate for the recovery you deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
