You are here: / Public Health Law
,

DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER, A NON-PROFIT WHICH PROMOTES GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined petitioner’s request for the “New York State Death Index” through December 31, 2017, should have been denied:

Petitioner is a not-for-profit organization that promotes public access to government records for historical and genealogical purposes. Respondent is statutorily charged with “procur[ing] the faithful registration of . . . deaths,” except in the City of New York … .  * * *

While petitioner’s interest in seeking information to assist in genealogical research promotes a legitimate public interest, such a request does not “further the policies of FOIL, which are to assist the public in formulating intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities” … . * * *

We agree with respondent’s contention that Public Health Law § 4174 (1) (a) provides an exemption authorizing the withholding of the requested information. That statute allows respondent to release “either a certified copy or a certified transcript of the record of any death” to seven specific categories of applicants. The provision concludes with a qualifier that “no certified copy or certified transcript of a death record shall be subject to disclosure under [FOIL]” … . The term certified transcript is broadly defined as “a computer generated or other reproduction of information abstracted from the original state or local record the elements of which shall be as determined by the commissioner and certified by the commissioner . . . as being an accurate abstract of information contained in the original record” … . We recognize that petitioners are not requesting copies of death certificates or any “certified” records. Even so, in our view, the import of the statute is to limit the disclosure of these records to applicants who fall within the defined categories, whose needs require that the records be certified. The express qualifier precludes a FOIL request otherwise made by a nonqualifying member of the general public. In this context, the statutory focus is not on the certification component but on maintaining the confidentiality of the underlying information … . Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York State Dept. of Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 02854, Third Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: The Public Health Law  limits the disclosure of death records kept by the health department to specific categories of applicants and state the records are not subject to disclosure under FOIL. Here the request by a non-profit promoting genealogical research was denied in its entirety.

 

, ,

FOR-PROFIT NURSING HOMES’ CHALLENGE TO ADJUSTED MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATES REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, rejected petitioner for-profit nursing homes’ challenges to the adjusted Medicaid reimbursement rates which were to be implemented as of April 1, 2020:

… [W]e reject petitioners’ challenges to adjusted Medicaid reimbursement rates issued to comply with amended Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2808 (20) (d), which mandates the elimination of one component from the computation formula used to set rates of for-profit residential health care facilities, on or after April 1, 2020. The amendment and the adjusted rates do not result in a retroactive effect and petitioners failed to establish that the rates are not “reasonable and adequate to meet costs” under PHL § 2807 (3) or that the rates violate their equal protection rights. We hold that respondents may implement the recalculated rates for services provided as of April 2, 2020 … . * * *

Petitioners, 116 for-profit nursing homes, filed this hybrid declaratory judgment and article 78 proceeding against State respondents—the Department [of Health] and its Commissioner and the Director of the Budget—challenging the Department’s implementation of the recalculated rates without the residual equity reimbursement factor. Simultaneously, petitioners moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent respondents from enforcing the equity elimination clause. Supreme Court granted petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the clause pending a final determination of the proceeding. Matter of Aaron Manor Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., LLC v Zucker, 2024 NY Slip Op 02126, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: The procedures and criteria for challenges to Medicaid reimbursement rates for for-profit nursing homes explained in depth.

 

, ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) in April 2021 was not retroactive. Therefore defendant’s nursing home was immune from suit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19. Although the Act does not confer immunity from gross negligence, gross negligence was not demonstrated because the Department of Health required nursing homes to admit COVID-positive patients:

As to the application of the EDTPA, defendant was entitled to immunity under that statute. The documents submitted with defendant’s motion to dismiss, including several pandemic-related policies, State Department of Health directives, and more than 1600 of pages of the decedent’s medical records, demonstrate that defendant was providing health care services to the decedent under the COVID-19 emergency orders when he was infected and, before that, “in accordance with applicable law”; the care provided was “impacted by” defendant’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and the decedent was provided care “in good faith” … . Hasan v Terrace Acquisitions II, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00739, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: This decision includes an extensive discussion of when a statute can be deemed to apply retroactively.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to defendants’ hospital with COVID-19 and died from COVID-19. Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [P]laintiff alleges that the decedent was diagnosed with COVID-19 after arriving at Elmhurst Hospital on March 30, 2020, and that he died from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The defendants’ submissions, including the complaint and the transcript of the plaintiff’s hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the EDTPA (see Public Health Law former § 3082 …). As the complaint makes no allegations that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted willful or intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, none of the exceptions to the immunity provisions of EDTPA apply (see Public Health Law former § 3082[2]). Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00186, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The defendants in the medical malpractice, wrongful death action are immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the hospital with COVID and died from COVID.

 

,

RESIDENTS OF A NURSING HOME ALLEGING INADEQUATE STAFFING, UNPALATABLE FOOD, MEDICATION DELAYS, INJURIES DUE TO INSUFFICIENT SUPERVISION, AND ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO SIT IN THEIR OWN WASTE, WERE PROPERY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS IN THIS PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2801-D ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, distinguishing a prior ruling involving similar issues, determined Supreme Court properly certified nursing-home patients at defendant’s facility as a class in this suit alleging substandard care:

The issue presented on this appeal is whether the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in this putative class action alleging a violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d. … [W]e distinguish our precedent in Olmann v Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC (186 AD3d 837) and determine that the court properly held … that the plaintiffs established the commonality and superiority requirements of CPLR 901(a) and, thus, correctly granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. * * *

… [T]he New York State Department of Health issued a report that revealed multiple issues within Sapphire, including rooms in disrepair, improper food monitoring, late medications, and insufficient staffing. Specifically, the report found, inter alia, that “[b]ased on observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that sufficient nursing staff were available to provide the services necessary to attain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of the resident population . . . in accordance with resident needs identified in the facility assessment.” …

The plaintiffs’ motion … included multiple affidavits of family members of residents and former residents …, as well as the affidavit of a former resident, in support of the allegation that [the facility] was insufficiently staffed. These affidavits contained … allegations of unpalatable food, medication delays, injuries due to insufficient supervision, and instances of residents sitting in their own waste for hours at a time. Jenack v Goshen Operations, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05495, First Dept 11-1-23

Practice Point: Here residents of a nursing home alleging substandard care in violation of Public Health Law 2801-d were properly certified as a class. The court distinguished a prior ruling where the action sounded in both negligence and violation of the Public Health Law.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was immune from a lawsuit stemming from a COVID-19-related death pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA 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 conditions 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 … . The health care services covered by the immunity provision included those related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19; the assessment or care of an individual with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19; and the care of any other individual who presented at a health care facility or to a health care professional during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration … . Mera v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04975, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), the defendant health care facility was immune from a lawsuit premised upon admission, treatment and death from COVID-19.

 

, , ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action should not have been converted to an Article 78 and the action was precluded by plaintiff-physician’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Public Health Law. Plaintiff was matched to a residency program at defendant hospital and the hospital was contractually bound to offer the residency to the plaintiff. The hospital sought a waiver which was denied, and the hospital still refused to offer the residency to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. Supreme Court improperly converted the action to an Article 78 (mandamus) proceeding and granted the preliminary injunction. The appellate division held a breach of contract action cannot be converted to an Article 78:

Invoking CPLR 103(c), the Supreme Court erroneously converted the subject branch of the plaintiff’s motion and this action into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Under CPLR 103(c), courts are empowered to convert a civil judicial proceeding that was brought in the improper form to the proper form and convert a motion into a special proceeding. Here, the court erred in concluding that a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was the proper form. “[A] CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights” … . “Indeed, it is well settled that mandamus relief lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts, and may not be used when there are other available remedies at law, such as a breach of contract action” … . * * *

Supreme Court should not have rejected the hospital’s argument that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for preliminary injunctive relief against it should be denied because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under Public Health Law article 28. Public Health Law § 2801-b(1) makes it an “improper practice” for a hospital to deny, withhold, or terminate professional privileges for a reason unrelated to “patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant.” “To enforce the statutory prohibition against improper practices, the Legislature created a two-step grievance process by which a physician may obtain injunctive relief requiring the hospital to restore wrongfully terminated staff privileges” … . “First, the physician must submit a complaint to the [public health and health planning council (hereinafter PHHPC)]” … . “It is the duty of the [PHHPC] to undertake a prompt investigation of the action complained of and to allow the parties to the dispute to submit, in a strictly confidential setting, any relevant information in support of their respective positions” … . “After investigating the physician’s complaint, the [PHHPC] will either direct the hospital to reconsider its decision or inform the parties of its determination that the complaint lacks merit” … . Khass v New York Presbyt. Brooklyn Methodist Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00851, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A breach of contract action is not properly converted to an Article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 103(c).

Practice Point: A hospital’s failure to honor its contractual commitment to admit plaintiff physician to a residency program is subject to administrative remedies under the Public Health Law which must be exhausted before bringing suit.

 

, ,

NONPUBLIC RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES NEED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW EQUITY OR TRANSFER ASSETS IN EXCESS OF 3% OF THE FACILITIES’ REVENUE; CORPORATE OWNERS NEED NOT INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION; FACILITIES OWNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES (I.E., LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES) MUST INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES IN THE 3% CALCULATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in two full-fledged opinions by Justice Lynch, determined that nonpublic residential health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in the calculation of equity withdrawals. Public Health Law 2808 (5) prohibits the withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of the facility’s total revenue without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Health. If the residential health care facility is owned by a corporation, federal and state income taxes are not included in the 3% calculation:

Public Health Law § 2808 (5) (c) responds to the Legislature’s concern that a facility’s improvident withdrawal of substantial assets would compromise the facility’s operation and “occasion irreparable harm within an especially fragile and dependent resident population” … . Given this context, “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes”  are necessarily those that concern a facility’s own financial obligations and expenses … . … . Petitioners do not dispute that, for a pass-through entity, income tax liability is borne by the owner, not the facility. Thus, given the regulatory scheme, income tax payments by such an entity would necessarily be equity withdrawals or asset transfers satisfying the obligation of the owner, not the facility … . In other words, even though such withdrawals are for tax payments, they are not “[w]ithdrawals for facility purposes” … . Matter of Brightonian Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: Unlike nonpublic health care facilities owned by corporations, nonpublic health care facilities owned by pass-through entities (i.e., a limited liability company, S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) must include federal and state income taxes in their calculation of withdrawals from equity. Withdrawal of equity or transfer of assets in excess of 3% of revenue requires the permission of the Commissioner of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2802 (5).

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW DECEDENT’S DIRECTIVES IN A LIVING WILL OR HEALTHCARE PROXY CAN CONSTITUTE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HEALTHCARE PROXY APPLIED, WHETHER A PROXY WAS REVOKED BY DECEDENT, AND WHETHER THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO DECEDENT WAS APPROVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact concerning which of two contradictory healthcare proxies applied and whether one of the healthcare proxies was revoked by decedent’s conversations:

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants alleging medical malpractice based on the various health proxies and forms. Plaintiff claims that defendants breached their agreement with the decedent by administering antibiotics and IV Hydration from April 15, 2017 onwards that prolonged his life.

Here, there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. It is unclear whether the 1993 healthcare proxy (and the living will), the 2016 healthcare proxy or the 2017 FLST [Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatment Including DNR] governed this dispute and whether the 2016 health care proxy was revoked by decedent through conversations with his agents, pursuant to Public Health Law § 2985(a). Significantly, it is not clear from the record whether the treatment prolonged decedent’s life, as neither side submits an expert affidavit. There is also a question as to whether decedent’s health care agents approved the very treatment for which they now seek to hold defendants liable. Lanzetta v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 06554, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Failure to follow a decedent’s directives in a living will or healthcare proxy can constitute medical malpractice. The directives can be orally revoked.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the repeal of the COVID-19-related Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law sections 3080-3082) should not be applied retroactively. Therefore, the immunity from civil liability provided by the EDTPA for health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients was in effect when the causes of action in the complaint arose. The complaint, which alleged plaintiff nursing-home resident was not properly tested and treated for COVID-19, was dismissed:

We … conclude that applying the repeal of EDTPA to the allegations in the complaint would have retroactive effect “by impairing rights [defendants] possessed in the past, increasing their liability for past conduct and imposing new duties with respect to transactions already completed” … . “Because the [repeal of EDTPA], if applied to past conduct, would impact substantive rights and have retroactive effect, the presumption against retroactivity is triggered” … . Ruth v Elderwood At Amherst, 2022 NY Slip Op 05637, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: The immunity from civil liability provided to health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients while the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) was in effect remains despite the subsequent repeal of the EDTPA. In other words, the repeal of the EDTPA is not given retroactive effect. The decision includes an exhaustive discussion and analysis of the retroactive application of statutes.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy