Ravain v. Ochsner Med. Ctr. Kenner

3 Citing cases

  1. Coleman v. Intensive Specialty Hosp.

    Civil Action 21-0370 (W.D. La. Dec. 19, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Additionally, this Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise to the level of willful misconduct that would be necessary to satisfy the PREP Act's “stringent standard” for such a claim. See Ravain v. Ochsner Med. Ctr. Kenner, LLC, No. CV 21-2365, 2022 WL 3334694, at *4 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2022). As defined by the PREP Act, “[w]illful misconduct is a ‘more stringent' standard of liability

  2. Roberts v. Alaris Health, LLC

    Civil Action 22-2298-JXN-AME (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    But the Court notes that one federal court recently held that the PREP Act does not completely preempt state-law intentional tort claims. See Ravain v. Ochsner Med. Ctr. Kenner, LLC, No. 21-2365, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144185, at *12 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2022) (“Considering the narrow application of complete preemption, we are not convinced that the PREP Act is one of those rare statutes where a federal statutory scheme is so comprehensive that it entirely supplants state-law intentional tort claims.”)

  3. M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

    528 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 11 times
    Holding a mother's claims against a covered entity for its failure to obtain parental consent for its administration of the COVID vaccine to her child fell within the scope of PREP Act immunity, even though she herself was not administered any countermeasure

    2. Mother's battery claim Mother also argues the district court erred in dismissing her battery claim as the PREP Act does not apply to intentional torts, citing Ravainv. Ochsner Medical Center , No. 21-2365, 2022 WL 3334694, at *5 (E.D. La. 2022) (unpublished opinion) (remanding case to state court, concluding that PREP Act's statutory scheme was not comprehensive enough to completely preempt state-law intentional tort claims). Mother essentially argues that the Act does not apply to intentional torts because the Act does not completely preempt state law intentional tort claims.