Second Circuit Says COVID-19 Negligence Action Against Hospital Belongs in State Court
- March 10, 2023
The Second Circuit ruled March 7 that a negligence action against a New York hospital in connection with a patient’s treatment there for COVID-19 should be remanded to state court.
Joining all other federal appeals courts to rule on the issue, the Second Circuit held that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) did not completely preempt state law negligence claims, nor did the federal-officer removal statute confer subject matter jurisdiction. The appeals court also found no substantial federal issue for keeping the action in federal court.
In March 2020, plaintiff Zachary Solomon was admitted to St. Joseph Hospital after testing positive for COVID-19. He was intubated for ten days and developed severe pressure sores. Solomon sued the hospital and its operator, Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc., in state court, for medical malpractice, negligence and gross negligence.
Defendants removed the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss, arguing they were immune from suit under the PREP Act. The district court denied the motion, holding that defendants were not entitled to immunity.
Although Solomon never opposed federal court jurisdiction, and the district court did not rule on the issue, the Second Circuit held the action was improperly removed and belonged in state court.
The PREP Act, which applies to the administration or use of covered countermeasures, only permits a federal cause of action for willful misconduct, and Solomon's state-law claims for malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence did “not fall within its narrow scope,” the appeals court said.
The Second Circuit declined to defer to the Department of Health and Human Services’ interpretation of the PREP Act, which favored removal, given the “unambiguous statutory provision concerning the scope of federal jurisdiction."
The appeals court also rejected defendants’ argument that the federal-officer removal statute conferred subject matter jurisdiction because the hospital was “acting under” the federal government or its agencies or officers.
Merely complying with federal laws and regulations does not amount to “acting under” a federal officer, the appeals court said. Citing other circuit precedent, the appeals court noted “the federal government's mere designation of an industry as important—or even critical” is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.
Finally, the appeals court held the claims did not raise a substantial federal issue permitting removal.
Solomon v. St. Joseph Hosp., No. 21-2729 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023).