Sterlacci v Clove Lakes Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home liability for COVID-19-related injuries and deaths under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA).
Granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) [pre-answer motion to dismiss, including for failure to state a cause of action], based on EDTPA immunity.
Dismissal of the gross negligence claim was reversed; that claim is reinstated.
EDTPA (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082 [COVID-19 emergency immunity for health care providers, with an exception for willful/intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm]) contains a gross negligence exception, and the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state such a claim. Although raised for the first time on appeal, it presented a pure question of law apparent on the face of the record.
Background
In April 2020, the decedent, Gerome Sterlacci, was admitted to the defendant's nursing facility, allegedly contracted SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 there, and died. The estate sued for negligence and gross negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a), asserting immunity under EDTPA. The Supreme Court granted the motion. On appeal, the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant failed to establish EDTPA qualification was unpreserved. The appellate court, however, exercised discretion to reach the gross negligence issue because it was a pure question of law apparent on the face of the record.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, granted the defendant's CPLR 3211(a) motion and dismissed the complaint in reliance on EDTPA immunity.
Appellate Division Reversal
The order was modified: the grant of dismissal as to the gross negligence claim was deleted and that branch of the motion was denied, reinstating the gross negligence cause of action. The remainder of the dismissal (e.g., ordinary negligence) was affirmed. The court held the complaint adequately alleged facts that could constitute gross negligence under the EDTPA exception.
Legal Significance
Confirms that EDTPA immunity does not bar claims adequately alleging gross negligence; plaintiffs may survive CPLR 3211(a) where pleadings plausibly allege conduct that ‘smacks of intentional wrongdoing’ or shows ‘reckless indifference to the rights of others.’ Also clarifies that unpreserved arguments can be reviewed when they present a pure question of law apparent on the record.
Even with EDTPA immunity, nursing homes may face COVID-19 suits where the complaint sufficiently pleads gross negligence; such claims should not be dismissed at the pleading stage under CPLR 3211(a).