Opinion
C. A. S22C-07-005 MHC
02-06-2024
Donald Vaughan, Jr., Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jannis D. Vaughan v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc.
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq. Kody M. Sparks, Esq. Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants. Wilson A. Gualpa, Esq. Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esq. Morris James LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants.
Wilson A. Gualpa, Esq.
Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esq.
Morris James LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
MARK H. CONNER JUDGE
Dear Counsel, Before the Court is the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. The Court is in receipt of all filings from both parties. After consideration of the parties' briefings and all relevant case law this Court has determined that the Defendant is not entitled to dismissal; therefore, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
As defense counsel is well aware, "[r]ecent decisions of this Court make it clear that while the PREP Act does provide immunity from suit to covered persons from losses related to the administration of covered countermeasures, it does not insulate all covered persons from suit merely because they administered covered countermeasures." The PREP Act does not "provide blanket immunity to a covered person (e.g., a facility) merely on account of that entity's having used or administered covered countermeasures in order to prevent the spread of CO VID-19. The plaintiffs claim of injury must have some 'causal relationship' to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure in order to trigger immunity."
Moore v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., Del. Super., C. A. No. S2 IC-12-018 MHC, Conner, J. (Dec. 28, 2023) (Letter Op.).
Santo v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., 2023 WL 3493880 (Del. Super. Ct. May 16, 2023).
In the present matter Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was careless and negligent in its treatment of the decedent. While it may be true that the PREP Act is not per se inapplicable whenever a complaint's allegations are characterized as involving negligent infectious disease protocols, this Court has found that the PREP Act does not insulate defendants from garden variety negligence claims such as those alleged in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. It is patently obvious under the recent decisions made by this Court, several of which defense counsel has been a party to, that PREP Act immunity does not insulate Defendants based on Plaintiff's allegations in the Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons Defendants have failed to avail themselves of PREP Act immunity. Further, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support a viable cause of action pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Sincerely,