Burke v Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
COVID-19-related civil immunity for health care facilities under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [statute enacted to broadly protect health care facilities and professionals from liability for care rendered during the COVID-19 emergency; immunity applies if three conditions are met and does not cover gross negligence or reckless misconduct, with a carveout for acts resulting from resource or staffing shortages], and the pleading standard on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action].
The Supreme Court granted the defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, holding they were immune under the EDTPA and that the amended complaint did not plead gross negligence.
The order dismissing the amended complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7) was reversed; the motion to dismiss was denied.
Although the EDTPA's repeal is not retroactive, the defendants failed to conclusively establish all three statutory requirements for EDTPA immunity (Public Health Law former § 3082[1]) at the pleading stage, and, accepting the allegations as true, the amended complaint adequately alleged gross negligence. Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), defendants' submissions did not conclusively negate plaintiff's causes of action.
Background
Plaintiff's mother resided at Sapphire from September 2014 until April 2020, when she was transferred to a hospital. She died on May 2, 2020, from COVID-19. Plaintiff, individually and as administrator of the estate, sued for negligence and gross negligence related to her care. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting EDTPA immunity and failure to plead gross negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County (Peter O'Donoghue, J.), granted dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7), finding EDTPA immunity applied and the allegations did not rise to gross negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive but concluded defendants did not conclusively establish the statute's three immunity prerequisites under Public Health Law former § 3082(1). Applying CPLR 3211(a)(7) standards, and giving plaintiff every favorable inference, the court found the amended complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence. The motion to dismiss was denied and the order reversed.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that EDTPA immunity at the pleading stage requires defendants to conclusively show each statutory element; otherwise, dismissal is inappropriate. Confirms EDTPA repeal is not retroactive, and clarifies that adequately pleaded gross negligence claims arising from COVID-19-era care can survive a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion.
On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, defendants in COVID-19 nursing home cases must conclusively establish EDTPA immunity; if they cannot, and the complaint plausibly alleges gross negligence, the case proceeds.