You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE FORMER “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORMER “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA)” PROVIDED IMMUNITY TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RE: COVID-19, HERE DEFENDANT NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMMUNITY WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home did not demonstrate the three statutory requirements for immunity for COVID-related treatment were met. Plaintiff alleged plaintiff’s decedent, during his admission to defendant’s facility in March 2020, was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19:

… [T]he EDTPA [Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act] initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services” as long as three requirements were met: the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law, the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives, and the services were arranged or provided in good faith (Public Health Law former § 3082[1] …).

* * * [W]hile the EDTPA “immunized healthcare facilities from civil liability for certain acts or omissions in the treatment of patients for COVID-19 during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration” … , the defendant’s submissions did not establish that the three requirements for immunity were satisfied … . Damon v Clove Lakes Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ctr., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03029, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: The repeal of the former Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) does not apply retroactively.

Practice Point: A healthcare provider asserting immunity from COVID-related injury under the former EDTPA must demonstrate the three statutory requirements for immunity have been met.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ THE INDICTMENT TO THE JURY TO SHOW THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF AT TRIAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE COERCION COUNT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROHIBITION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
​HERE THERE IS AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS UNAVOIDABLY DELAYED IN GETTING TO COURT AND SO INFORMED THE JUDGE; IN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ABSENCE A JUROR REQUESTED TO BE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF HER FRIEND’S SON; THE DISCHARGE OF THE JUROR WITHOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONSENT REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
In Consolidated Actions Started in Different Counties, the County Where the First Action Was Brought is the Proper Venue
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
THIS TENANT ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT RENT OVERCHARGES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW AND CODE IS APPROPRIATE FOR A CLASS ACTION; THE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLANTIFF HAD NOT INFORMED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THIS PERSONAL INJURY CAUSE... DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY...