Michel v Prospect Park Operating, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A nursing home wrongful death and personal injury case arising from care provided before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on whether the facility was immune under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), Public Health Law former article 30-D, §§ 3080-3082 [statute enacted to broadly protect health care facilities and professionals from liability resulting from treatment during the COVID-19 public health emergency, except for gross negligence].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted dismissal of the ordinary negligence claims under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], but denied dismissal of the gross negligence and willful and reckless conduct claims.
The Appellate Division overturned the lower court's refusal to dismiss the gross negligence and willful and reckless conduct claims, while affirming dismissal of the ordinary negligence claims.
The defendant's nursing director affidavit conclusively established EDTPA immunity for care rendered on or after March 7, 2020, and also established no negligence before that date. The complaint's allegations were insufficient to state viable claims for gross negligence or willful and reckless conduct.
Background
Beatrice Michel, as administrator of the estate of Virginia Andre, sued Prospect Park Operating, LLC, a nursing facility, seeking damages for personal injuries and wrongful death after the decedent died in April 2020. The complaint alleged negligent, grossly negligent, and willful and reckless care. The defendant asserted immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), Public Health Law former § 3082 [granting immunity to health care facilities for certain COVID-19-related acts or omissions if statutory conditions are met, except in cases of gross negligence].
Lower Court Decision
The trial court held that the defendant was entitled to dismissal of the negligence causes of action, but it allowed the gross negligence and willful and reckless conduct causes of action to continue.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and granted dismissal of the gross negligence and willful and reckless conduct claims. It affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, holding that dismissal of the negligence claims was proper. The court found that EDTPA immunity applied to care on or after March 7, 2020, because the defendant showed the care was provided pursuant to COVID-19 emergency rules or applicable law, was impacted by pandemic-response decisions, and was provided in good faith. The court also clarified that EDTPA immunity did not apply before March 7, 2020, but the defendant's proof nevertheless conclusively established no negligence during that earlier period.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that EDTPA immunity was limited to acts or omissions occurring on or after March 7, 2020, the date of the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and that defendants may obtain dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) when evidentiary submissions conclusively show immunity or negate the alleged facts. It also underscores that conclusory allegations of gross negligence or willful and reckless conduct are insufficient to bypass EDTPA immunity.
A nursing home defendant can secure dismissal at the pleading stage when it conclusively shows EDTPA immunity for pandemic-period care and when the complaint does not plead concrete facts rising above ordinary negligence.