Berna Lee v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
COVID-19-era nursing home liability and statutory immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA).
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted dismissal under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], holding the defendants were immune under the EDTPA and that the complaint did not plead gross negligence.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting the CPLR 3211 motion and denied dismissal.
While the EDTPA (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [statute enacted to broadly protect health care facilities and professionals from liability arising from treatment of individuals with COVID-19 during the public health emergency] was not retroactively repealed, defendants did not conclusively establish all three immunity elements under Public Health Law former § 3082(1) [immunity if (a) care was pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule/applicable law; (b) the act occurred in the course of care and treatment was impacted by COVID-19 response; and (c) services were provided in good faith], and the complaint adequately alleged conduct amounting to gross negligence.
Background
Plaintiff’s mother resided at Sapphire from January 2018 to April 2020, was transferred to a hospital, tested positive for COVID-19, and died two months later. Plaintiff, individually and as administrator, sued for negligence and gross negligence over the decedent’s care. Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], invoking EDTPA immunity (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [statute enacted to broadly protect health care facilities and professionals from liability arising from treatment of individuals with COVID-19 during the public health emergency].
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the motion, holding defendants were protected by the EDTPA and that the complaint’s allegations did not rise to gross negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the EDTPA’s repeal is not retroactive but found defendants’ submissions did not conclusively satisfy the statute’s three prerequisites for immunity under Public Health Law former § 3082(1). Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court further held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded gross negligence. The order granting dismissal under CPLR 3211(a) was reversed and the motion denied.
Legal Significance
On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, a defendant asserting EDTPA immunity bears the burden to conclusively establish all statutory elements of immunity; failure to do so precludes dismissal at the pleading stage. Allegations of gross negligence can defeat EDTPA immunity (notwithstanding the carveout that acts stemming solely from resource or staffing shortages are not gross negligence), and the EDTPA’s repeal does not retroactively eliminate immunity for pre-repeal conduct.
EDTPA immunity is not a basis for early dismissal unless the defendant conclusively proves all statutory prongs; well-pleaded gross negligence claims survive a CPLR 3211 motion.