In its published Opinion filed on May 4, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed that a hospital was entitled to immunity for medical malpractice claims arising during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background Facts
James Smith, Jr. suffered a serious deep tissue injury while hospitalized during April and May 2020. Before Mr. Smith entered the hospital, Maryland Governor Lawrence Hogan, Jr. had declared a catastrophic health emergency in Maryland in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Smith’s injury disabled him permanently, and he and his wife sued the University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Health System, Inc., Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc., and Upper Chesapeake Health System, Inc., for negligence and loss of consortium.
Upper Chesapeake answered that it had been operating under modified protocols pursuant to the Governor’s health emergency proclamation during Mr. Smith’s hospitalization and, therefore, was immune from civil liability pursuant to Md. Code (2003, 2022 Repl. Vol.), § 14-3A-06 of the Public Safety Article (“PS”).
COVID-19 Immunity: § 14-3A-06 of the Public Safety Article
Statutory immunity under Md. Code (2003, 2022 Repl. Vol.), § 14-3A-06 of the Public Safety Article (“PS”) applies to care given by health care providers acting in good faith under a state-declared emergency proclamation. The immunity afforded by PS § 14-3A-06 does not hinge on whether the healthcare provider treated a patient for an illness caused by the biological agent underlying a health emergency proclamation. Rather, the General Assembly conditioned immunity for providers only on actions taken in good faith and in response to the emergency proclamation.
Upper Chesapeake maintained that it adopted multiple emergency protocols during the pandemic that affected the treatment Mr. Smith received and that its actions under those policies related sufficiently to the pandemic and the emergency proclamation such that statutory immunity applies. As reinforcement, the hospital pointed to modified policies regarding PPE and how the need to conserve limited PPE resources, limit unnecessary exposure, and control the spread of the virus affected the staff’s ability to spend time with patients. Upper Chesapeake contended that even though Mr. Smith had tested negative for COVID-19, he remained critically ill, compelling the hospital to suspect COVID-19 infection and keep him in isolation in the ICU with COVID-19 precautions in place during the period of alleged negligence. In this respect, it argued, the care Upper Chesapeake provided “cannot be extricated from COVID-19,” and Mr. Smith did not contest the impact its COVID-19 policies had on the hospital’s treatment capacity during that time.
The Maryland appellate court stated: “Although we agree with Mr. Smith that the immunity statute doesn’t confer blanket immunity on all health care providers for all claims arising during declared emergencies under any circumstances, we hold that the text of the statute does immunize care provided in good faith in compliance with directives issued in connection with a declared emergency. The text doesn’t point to the degree of connection between the diagnosis or the care and the source of the emergency, in this case COVID-19, but rather to the good faith of the provider’s response to the Governor’s declared emergency. The statute recognizes that the declared emergency alters providers’ ability to provide care in accordance with the usual standard of care. So long as the provider, in good faith, has adopted and is executing protocols that respond to the declared emergency and the directives of the Secretary, the provider is entitled to immunity for claims arising from that care.”
“The critical words in that sentence are “good faith.” The parties don’t dispute that the Governor issued a proclamation that declared COVID-19 a catastrophic health emergency for purposes of PS § 14-3A-02, that the emergency proclamation was in effect during Mr. Smith’s hospitalization, or that Upper Chesapeake acted in good faith when it cared for him … We look to the text of the statute, and that language, on its face, confers immunity bounded by the provider’s good faith adaptation to the emergency, in compliance with the directives of the Governor and executive branch officials authorized to declare it. So long as the provider’s deviations from the standard of care are grounded in policies or protocols that represented a good faith response to the emergency—and in this case, they did—the provider is immune from liability … We can see from the text that the General Assembly conditioned immunity for healthcare providers only on good faith and an emergency proclamation under PS § 14-3A-02. The immunity provision limits liability concerns that otherwise might restrict healthcare providers’ ability or willingness to act quickly in a declared emergency.”
“Upper Chesapeake provided care consistent with this guidance to Mr. Smith until April 22, the time during which he developed the deep tissue injury underlying his claims in this case. And the hospital’s records reflect its application of the COVID-19 response policies to Mr. Smith in a manner consistent with his clinical presentation. Because the hospital’s good faith compliance with the emergency health proclamation altered its delivery of care, the care Mr. Smith received from the hospital in this case is entitled to immunity under the statute.”
The Maryland appellate court held: “We don’t read PS § 14-3A-06 to confer absolute immunity for any action taken by
any healthcare provider during a declared catastrophic health emergency. The statute asks whether the care is being delivered in good faith “under a catastrophic health emergency proclamation,” PS § 14-3A-06, and a provider that didn’t respond to a declared emergency or that implemented protocols inconsistent with professional or regulatory good faith wouldn’t be entitled to immunity under § 14-3A-06. In this case, though, there is no allegation, let alone evidence, that Upper Chesapeake failed to devise or implement its emergency protocols in good faith. The circuit court extended statutory immunity to Upper Chesapeake and granted summary judgment to the hospital correctly.”
Source James Smith, Jr., et al. v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center Inc., No. 0927, September Term, 2024.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Maryland, you should promptly find the best Maryland medical malpractice lawyer for you, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a Maryland medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to find experienced Maryland medical malpractice attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.