Cacace v Grandell Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home COVID-19 liability and statutory immunity for alleged failures in infection control during the early pandemic.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the defendant's motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule permitting dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], and upon renewal and reargument adhered to that determination.
The Appellate Division modified the order to dismiss the gross negligence claims and the negligence claims based on conduct occurring on or after March 7, 2020.
The complaint did not allege facts sufficient to state gross negligence; the defendant failed to show immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (42 USC § 247d-6d et seq.) [federal law granting broad immunity for claims arising from the administration or use of covered countermeasures during a public health emergency]; but the defendant conclusively established immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [New York law granting certain health care providers and facilities immunity for care impacted by the COVID-19 emergency], and that statute's repeal was not retroactive.
Background
The decedent resided at Grandell Rehabilitation and Nursing Center from March 3, 2020, until April 7, 2020, and allegedly contracted COVID-19 there and died from it. The plaintiff, acting as administrator of the estate, sued for negligence and gross negligence, alleging the facility failed to prepare and implement adequate infection-control procedures both before March 7, 2020, and on or after that date. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing immunity under the PREP Act and the EDTPA.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court denied the defendant's CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss the complaint and later, on renewal and reargument, adhered to that denial. It therefore allowed the negligence and gross negligence claims to proceed despite the defendant's asserted statutory immunity defenses.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the amended order as superseded by the later order, then modified the March 8, 2023 order. It held that the gross negligence causes of action should have been dismissed because the pleaded facts were insufficient. It also held that all negligence claims based on acts or omissions occurring on or after March 7, 2020, were barred by EDTPA immunity. However, it rejected the defendant's PREP Act immunity argument because the defendant did not establish that the decedent's injuries arose from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) was not retroactive, so qualifying health care defendants may still invoke its immunity for conduct during the covered COVID-19 period. It also confirms that nursing homes seeking federal PREP Act immunity must specifically show that the alleged injury arose from a covered countermeasure, not merely from generalized pandemic-related care or infection-control failures. In addition, conclusory allegations of gross negligence will not survive a motion to dismiss without facts showing conduct beyond ordinary negligence.
In New York nursing home COVID-19 cases, ordinary negligence claims tied to covered care after March 7, 2020, may be dismissed under the EDTPA, but PREP Act immunity requires a concrete link to a covered countermeasure, and gross negligence must be pleaded with specific, substantial facts.