Court Denies COVID-19 Immunity To Nursing Home Defendants: On March 10, 2020, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont issued a declaration of public health and civil preparedness emergencies, proclaiming a state of emergency throughout the state of Connecticut as a result of COVID-19. Then, on April 5, 2020, Governor Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7U, which he subsequently amended on April 7, 2020, by issuing Executive Order No. 7V, § 6, which provides, among other things, immunity from suit and liability to health care providers under certain circumstances relating to COVID-19.
Background Facts
Regency House of Wallingford, Inc., operates a nursing home named Regency House of Wallingford Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Regency House) with National Health Care Associates, Inc., providing guidance to Regency House regarding administrative functions.
Beginning in 2014, Darlene Matejek lived at Regency House. The defendants’ care plan for Matejek specified that she required assistance for bed and wheelchair transfers. On or about April 26, 2020, Matejek fell during a bed transfer. The defendants’ staff at Regency House placed Matejek back into her bed, did not immediately report the fall to her family, and failed to treat her pain. The defendants’ staff at Regency House also did not obtain medical treatment for Matejek
for two days. Eventually, she was transported to a hospital, where physicians diagnosed Matejek with left and right femur fractures, which permanently disabled both of Matejek’s legs. After receiving treatment for her fractured left and right femurs at the hospital, Matejek was returned to Regency House to undergo additional medical treatment and rehabilitative care, although the defendants’ staff at Regency House failed to adequately provide the prescribed physical therapy. Her fall and the delay in treatment that followed also led Matejek to suffer a heart arrythmia, atrial fibrillation, severe anxiety and stress, and pain and suffering. Matejek died on December 29, 2020, allegedly as a result of her injuries.
The plaintiff, both on behalf of Matejek as administratrix of her estate and in her individual capacity, in which she seeks damages for loss of consortium, filed a complaint against the defendants for Matejek’s treatment at Regency House and death, alleging twelve counts of wrongful death under General Statutes § 52-555, based on medical negligence and medical recklessness. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and/or reckless in that they failed to obtain immediate medical treatment for Matejek’s injuries, which required surgical intervention; failed initially to report the fall; failed to treat Matejek’s pain; failed to obtain necessary medical treatment for two days; failed to implement the plan of care for Matejek prior to the fall; and failed to provide the physician-ordered physical
therapy after Matejek returned to Regency House from the hospital.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming immunity from suit pursuant to Executive Order No. 7V on the ground that the order applied to ‘‘acts or omissions undertaken because of a lack of resources, attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, that renders the health care professional or health care facility unable to provide the level or manner of care that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and which resulted in the damages at issue . . . .’’ The plaintiff objected to the motion to dismiss, asserting that Matejek’s injuries did not involve any connection to COVID-19 treatment, placing the defendants’ activities outside of the protections of Executive Order No. 7V, arguing that the defendants had failed to provide the trial court with any evidence regarding how COVID-19 specifically impacted the care that Matejek received and further arguing that the defendants’ proposed interpretation of Executive Order No. 7V would unreasonably shield health care actors from liability, regardless of whether the medical treatment in question was connected to the pandemic.
The Connecticut Supreme Court stated in its August 8, 2023 opinion: “Executive Order No. 7V, § 6, provides in relevant part: ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the Connecticut General Statutes or any other state law, including the common law, or any associated regulations, rules, policies, or procedures, any health care professional or health care facility shall be immune from suit for civil liability for any injury or death alleged to have been sustained because of the individual’s or health care facility’s acts or omissions undertaken in good faith while providing health care services in support of the [s]tate’s COVID-19 response, including but not limited to acts or omissions undertaken because of a lack of resources, attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, that renders the health care professional or health care facility unable to provide the level or manner of care that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and which resulted in the damages at issue, provided that nothing in this order shall remove or limit any immunity conferred by any provision of the Connecticut General Statutes or other law.’’ (Emphasis added.) At issue in the present case is the meaning of the ‘‘lack of resources’’ clause.”
The Connecticut Supreme Court stated: “The plain and unambiguous language of the ‘‘lack of resources’’ clause, however, manifests an intent that, for immunity to apply, the defendants must establish that (1) there was a lack of resources, absent an assertion of another relevant circumstance, attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) this lack of resources caused the acts and/or omissions at issue. Specifically, the phrase ‘‘attributable to the COVID-19
pandemic’’ directly modifies the phrase, ‘‘a lack of resources,’’ as evident by the placement of the commas and the fact that this phrase cannot reasonably modify any other portion of the executive order … As a result, this language clearly requires the defendants to show that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a specific lack of resources. Additionally, the phrase, ‘‘because of a lack of resources,’’ directly modifies the phrase, ‘‘acts or omissions undertaken’’ in Executive Order No. 7V.”
The Connecticut Supreme Court held in the case it was deciding: “Applying this interpretation of Executive Order No.
7V to the present case, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the defendants failed to establish that a particular lack of resources due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused the alleged acts and/or omissions … the defendants offered evidence of a lack of specific resources and that the COVID-19 pandemic caused this lack of resources. But there is no evidence in the record about how the lack of these specific resources specifically related to the defendants’ alleged actions and/or omissions that caused Matejek’s injuries … we conclude that, although the trial court incorrectly narrowed the scope of Executive Order No. 7V, it correctly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
Source Manginelli v. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc. , SC 20767,SC 20768.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries (or worse) while a resident of a nursing home in Connecticut or in another U.S. state due to nursing home neglect, nursing home negligence, nursing home abuse, nursing home understaffing, or the nursing home failing to properly care for a vulnerable adult, you should promptly find a nursing home claim lawyer in Connecticut or a nursing home claim lawyer in your state who may investigate your nursing home claim for you and file a nursing home claim on your behalf or behalf of your loved one, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys (nursing home claim attorneys) in your U.S. state who may assist you with your nursing home claim, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.