Court Opinion

ID: 9930526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 03:01:55.549906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:17.678763
License: Public Domain

SUPERIOR COURT
                                 OF THE
                           STATE OF DELAWARE

MARK H. CONNER                                       Sussex County Courthouse
JUDGE                                                      1 The Circle, Suite 2
                                                         Georgetown, DE 19947

                                     February 6, 2024

Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.                            Wilson A. Gualpa, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.                                 Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esq.
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C.                   Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue,                                 500 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 720                                            Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801                                 Wilmington, DE 19899
Attorneys for Defendants.                            Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

            RE: Donald Vaughan, Jr., Individually and as Personal
            Representative of the Estate of Jannis D. Vaughan v. Genesis
            Healthcare, Inc.
            C.A. No. S22C-07-005 MHC

Dear Counsel,

      Before the Court is the Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

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.”1 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 COVID-19.                     The

plaintiff’s claim of injury must have some ‘causal relationship’ to the use or

administration of a covered countermeasure in order to trigger immunity.”2

       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 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. It is patently obvious under the recent

decisions made by this Court, several of which defense counsel has been a party to,

1
  Moore v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., Del. Super., C.A. No. S21C-12-018 MHC, Conner, J. (Dec.
28, 2023) (Letter Op.).
2
  Santo v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., 2023 WL 3493880 (Del. Super. Ct. May 16, 2023).
                                             2
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 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DENIED.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      /s/ Mark H. Conner

                                      Mark H. Conner
                                      Judge
CC: Prothonotary

                                        3