Title: Brandywine Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Terri Hansen, Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Secret, at al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDYWINE NURSING AND 
REHABILITATION CENTER, 
INC., a Delaware corporation, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TERRI HANSEN, Personal 
Representative of the Estate of 
CHARLES SECREST and 
BEVERLY SHINNIN, Personal 
Representative of the Estate of 
SOPHIA STAR SAKEWICZ, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 59, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N21C-03-233 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
  Submitted:    February 24, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 Decided:       March 16, 2023  
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental 
notice of interlocutory appeal, and the exhibits, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 23, 2021, plaintiffs below-appellees Terri Hansen, personal 
representative of the estate of Charles Secrest, and Beverly Shinnin, personal 
representative of the estate of Sophie Star Sakewicz, (“Personal Representatives”) 
filed a medical negligence action against defendant below-appellant Brandywine 
2 
 
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“BNR”) in the Superior Court.  Secrest and 
Sakewicz were elderly residents of BNR when they died from complications of 
COVID-19 in 2020.  The Personal Representatives alleged that BNR: (i) failed to 
hire, train, or direct staff as to the appropriate protocol to follow during the COVID-
19 pandemic; (ii) failed to follow CDC guidelines concerning hygiene, segregation, 
and visitation; and (iii) was negligent in other respects that might be uncovered 
during discovery.  In May 2021, BNR removed the case to the United States District 
Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that the Personal Representatives’ 
claims were preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency 
Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”).  After briefing, the District Court remanded the 
case to the Superior Court in January 2022.1 
(2) 
On July 13, 2022, BNR moved to dismiss the case.  BNR argued that 
the PREP Act immunized the conduct giving rise to the complaint.  After briefing 
and oral argument, the Superior Court issued an opinion denying BNR’s motion to 
dismiss on January 23, 2023 (“Opinion”).2  The court held that: (i)  infectious disease 
protocols were not “covered countermeasures” entitling BNR to immunity under the 
PREP Act; (ii) Health and Human Services advisory opinions did not expand the 
 
1 Hansen v. Brandywine Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 2022 WL 608968 (D. Del. Jan. 19, 2022). 
2 Hansen v. Brandywine Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 2023 WL 587950 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan 23, 
2023). 
3 
 
meaning of the PREP Act; and (iii) the PREP Act did not create a new defense to 
standard negligence claims.3        
(3) 
On February 2, 2023, BNR filed an application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal.  The Personal Representatives opposed the application.  On 
February 24, 2023, the Superior Court denied the application for certification.4    
(4) 
In denying certification, the court questioned whether the Opinion 
decided a substantial issue for purposes of Supreme Court Rule 42, but proceeded to 
consider the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria that BNR relied upon.5  The court acknowledged 
that the Opinion was the first Delaware decision to address PREP Act immunity, but 
emphasized that its reasoning relied on longstanding principles of statutory 
construction and application of the plain meaning of the relevant language in the 
PREP Act.6  The court also noted that the central holding of the Opinion—PREP Act 
immunity does not apply to standard infectious disease protocols—was consistent 
with the great weight of authority in other jurisdictions.7  The court concluded that 
the delays and disruptions associated with interlocutory review of an issue that was 
 
3 Id. at *5-8.   
4 Hansen v. Brandywine Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 2023 WL 2199610 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 
24, 2023). 
5 BNR relied upon Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) (the interlocutory order involves a question of law resolved 
for the first time in Delaware), (B) (trial court decisions are conflicting on the question of law), 
(G) (review of the interlocutory order may terminate the litigation), and (H) (review of the 
interlocutory order may serve considerations of justice). 
6 Id. at *3. 
7 Id. 
4 
 
decided consistently with other jurisdictions would not serve considerations of 
justice.8   Finally, the court found that the likely benefits of interlocutory review did 
not weigh the probable costs such that interlocutory review was in the interests of 
justice. 9 
(5) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.10  In determining whether to accept an interlocutory appeal, 
this Court may consider all relevant factors, including the trial court’s decision about 
whether to certify an interlocutory appeal.11  We agree with the Superior Court that 
the Rule 42(B)(iii) criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review and that the 
potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, 
disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
10 Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
11 Id.