Burke v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
COVID-19-era immunity for nursing homes under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) and pleading standards for gross negligence at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Granted dismissal under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], holding defendants immune under the EDTPA (Public Health Law former § 3082) [provided broad immunity to health care facilities and professionals for acts/omissions in arranging or providing health care services during the COVID-19 emergency if three conditions were met; immunity did not apply to gross negligence or reckless misconduct, and resource/staffing shortages were not gross negligence] and finding no gross negligence was pleaded.
The order granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Defendants’ evidentiary submissions did not conclusively establish all three EDTPA immunity elements, and the complaint sufficiently pleaded gross negligence when its allegations are accepted as true. The EDTPA’s repeal (L 2021, ch 96, § 1) [repealed the EDTPA] is not retroactive, but that did not warrant dismissal.
Background
The 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 her estate, sued for negligence and gross negligence relating to her care at Sapphire. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting EDTPA immunity and arguing the complaint failed to allege gross negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted defendants’ CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, finding EDTPA immunity applied and the allegations did not rise to gross negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed. The court held that defendants’ submissions did not conclusively establish the three prerequisites for EDTPA immunity regarding the decedent’s care and that, giving plaintiff every favorable inference, the amended complaint adequately alleged gross negligence. Although the EDTPA’s repeal is not retroactive, defendants failed to show entitlement to immunity on the present record; therefore, dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.
Legal Significance
Confirms that the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive, but at the CPLR 3211 stage defendants must conclusively demonstrate all EDTPA elements to obtain immunity. Allegations plausibly constituting gross negligence can defeat an EDTPA-based motion to dismiss, notwithstanding staffing/resource-shortage carve-outs.
At the pleading stage, EDTPA immunity is not presumed; defendants must conclusively establish all elements, and well-pleaded gross negligence claims will survive a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion even though the EDTPA repeal does not apply retroactively.