Agams v Shore View Acquisition I, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home COVID-19 liability and whether a wrongful-death-based gross negligence claim can survive statutory immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [immunized healthcare facilities from civil liability for certain acts or omissions in the treatment of patients for COVID-19 during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant nursing home's motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] to dismiss the gross negligence cause of action.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and granted dismissal of the gross negligence claim.
Even giving the complaint every favorable inference, the allegations and opposition submissions did not sufficiently plead willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, so the claim fell within EDTPA immunity rather than its exception.
Background
The plaintiff, acting as administrator of the decedent's estate, sued the nursing home where the decedent resided before his death. The complaint alleged that the decedent contracted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the facility and died on April 4, 2020. Among other claims, the plaintiff asserted gross negligence arising from the decedent's death.
Lower Court Decision
The defendant moved, among other things, to dismiss the gross negligence cause of action under CPLR 3211(a), arguing that EDTPA immunity barred the claim and that the pleaded facts did not rise to gross negligence or recklessness. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that dismissal was required. Applying the standard for a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court concluded that the amended complaint, even as amplified by the plaintiff's opposition papers, did not allege conduct that smacked of intentional wrongdoing or showed reckless indifference to others' rights. Because the pleadings did not bring the case within the EDTPA exception in former Public Health Law § 3082(2), the defendant remained immune from liability on the gross negligence claim.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that during the COVID-19 emergency period, healthcare facilities and nursing homes could obtain dismissal at the pleading stage when EDTPA immunity applied and the complaint failed to allege facts supporting the statute's narrow exception for gross negligence, reckless misconduct, willful or intentional criminal misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm.
A plaintiff suing a nursing home over COVID-19-related care during the EDTPA period must plead specific facts showing truly egregious conduct; conclusory allegations of poor care are not enough to overcome statutory immunity.