The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped nearly every aspect of daily life, including how patients accessed medical care and how providers delivered it. Courts are still grappling with the legal consequences of those extraordinary circumstances. A recent New York decision highlights how temporary immunity laws enacted during the public health crisis continue to influence medical malpractice litigation today. If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care and you have questions about how pandemic-related laws may affect your potential case, it is critical to speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant physician on March 16, 2020, for nausea, constipation, and vomiting. The physician, who practiced with a gastroenterology group, examined the plaintiff in his office at that time.
Allegedly, the plaintiff’s symptoms continued, and the defendant’s office closed on March 23, 2020, pursuant to the statewide emergency declaration. It is alleged that thereafter, the defendant communicated with the plaintiff by telephone on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020. On April 6, the plaintiff presented to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction.
It is further reported that in December 2020, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to perform a complete physical examination, failed to order appropriate diagnostic testing, and failed to advise the plaintiff to seek emergency care, including the importance of obtaining an X-ray.
It is alleged that the defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they were immune from liability under the EDTPA, which granted temporary protections to healthcare providers rendering care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendants submitted deposition transcripts and medical records in support of their motion. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the EDTPA was inapplicable under the circumstances and that its repeal in 2021 should apply retroactively. The trial court sided with the defendants and dismissed the complaint, prompting the plaintiff to appeal.
Immunity under the EDTPA
On appeal, the court first addressed whether the repeal of the EDTPA applied retroactively. The court ruled that it did not, noting that multiple decisions had already held that the repeal of the statute was prospective only. Therefore, the statute remained applicable to treatment provided during its effective period.
The court then considered the requirements for immunity under the EDTPA. The law provided that healthcare facilities and professionals were immune from civil or criminal liability if the alleged harm arose from treatment impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, provided in accordance with emergency directives, and rendered in good faith. The statute did not require proof that treatment was uniquely affected for a particular patient, only that it was impacted by pandemic-related circumstances.
The court found that the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their treatment of the plaintiff on March 16, 2020, was impacted by the pandemic. On that date, the medical office was still open, and there was no indication that COVID-19 restrictions influenced the physician’s treatment plan. Thus, the appellate court modified the trial court’s ruling, holding that the malpractice claims relating to the March 16, 2020, office visit should not have been dismissed.
By contrast, the court held that immunity did apply to the care provided on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020. During those dates, the office was closed due to emergency orders, and treatment was necessarily conducted by telephone. The physician testified that he wished to order an X-ray but could only direct patients to the emergency room during that time, while the plaintiff testified that she was reluctant to seek hospital-based care due to underlying respiratory conditions and pandemic concerns. The court concluded that these facts demonstrated that treatment during April 2020 was directly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions and therefore fell within the protections of the EDTPA.
Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of the claims based on April treatment but reinstated those stemming from the March 16, 2020, office visit.
Talk to a Trusted Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice litigation is often complex, particularly when statutory immunities or procedural defenses come into play. The COVID-19 pandemic created unique legal challenges that continue to affect the rights of patients and the responsibilities of providers. If you believe you have suffered harm due to negligent medical care, the experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you understand how the law applies to your situation. Contact us today at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.