Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals and healthcare providers sought legal immunity under emergency protection laws enacted during the public health crisis. However, courts continue to scrutinize whether the alleged negligent conduct actually resulted from or was impacted by pandemic-related conditions. A recent New York decision illustrates how this analysis plays out in medical malpractice litigation. If you or a loved one sustained injuries due to a hospital’s failure to provide adequate care, a knowledgeable Rochester medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your rights.
History of the Case
It is alleged that the plaintiff, who had a documented history of multiple sclerosis, sought care at the defendant’s hospital after experiencing generalized weakness and an inability to walk. The plaintiff had tested positive for COVID-19 three weeks prior to her hospital visit and was re-tested upon admission, again receiving a positive result. The plaintiff was admitted to the facility and began receiving treatment for COVID-19.
It is reported that several days into her hospital stay, the plaintiff fell while walking to the bathroom. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital failed to provide continuous monitoring, respond to her request for assistance in going to the bathroom, or supply assistive devices such as a walker or wheelchair. The plaintiff initiated a negligence and medical malpractice action against the hospital, claiming that the institution failed to account for her limited mobility in light of her multiple sclerosis and COVID-related symptoms.
It is further reported that the hospital moved to dismiss the case prior to the completion of discovery, relying on the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which was in effect during the relevant time period. In support of its motion, the hospital submitted the plaintiff’s certified medical records, its COVID-19 care protocols, and sworn statements from its Department of Medicine Chair and Director of Performance Improvement. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the scope of the statutory immunity because the hospital’s ability to provide routine care was impacted by the pandemic.
COVID-19 Related Immunity
The court acknowledged that the EDTPA provides temporary immunity to healthcare providers for actions taken during the COVID-19 emergency, provided that the pandemic directly impacted the treatment in question. Specifically, the statute shielded providers from liability for harm or damages if they were delivering care affected by COVID-related staffing shortages, emergency protocols, or resource limitations.
However, the court emphasized that the burden was on the defendant to establish a clear link between the alleged negligence and the hospital’s COVID-19 response. Although the hospital demonstrated that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with and treated for COVID-19 at the time of her fall, it failed to show that the plaintiff’s injury; specifically, the lack of assistive walking devices—was caused by pandemic conditions. The court pointed out that the hospital’s affidavits lacked specific evidence showing how the unavailability of a walker or the failure to provide assistance resulted from staffing limitations or changes in policy.
Moreover, the court explained that resolving the immunity question required a fact-intensive analysis that could not be fairly conducted before the plaintiff had an opportunity to engage in discovery. The court noted that the defendant’s motion effectively required the plaintiff to accept the hospital’s narrative on key factual issues, including staffing shortages and care protocols, without the ability to test those assertions through depositions or document production. Because of this, the court concluded that it would be premature to grant dismissal.
The court also found that the affidavit and affirmation submitted by the hospital’s personnel did not conclusively establish that all aspects of the plaintiff’s treatment were affected by the hospital’s COVID-19 response. As a result, the court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff’s claims to proceed.
Speak with an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Hospitals may assert broad defenses under emergency protection statutes, but courts continue to require clear, case-specific proof that alleged negligence was tied to emergency conditions. If you were injured because a hospital failed to provide proper care during the COVID-19 pandemic or at any other time, you may have grounds for a claim. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are here to help. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a consultation and learn more about your legal options.
