By: Angie Cameron Smith
On October 4, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion confirming and upholding the validity of not only the Governor’s Executive Order of May 8, 2020, providing immunity from negligence claims during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also the COVID immunity statute passed by the Alabama Legislature in the 2021 legislative session.
Background
The Governor’s Executive Order (the “Order”) stated that due to the public health emergency, “reasonable protections from the risk and expense of lawsuits” were necessary to allow businesses to re-open and provide “safe harbors for health care providers that operate reasonably consistent with applicable public health guidance.” The Order provided legal immunity to health care providers for conduct in connection with the treatment of COVID-19. The Order issued under the Governor’s authority granted to her under the Alabama Emergency Management Act (“AEMA”).
Following the May 8, 2020 Order, the Alabama Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed into law, the Alabama COVID Immunity Act (“ACIA”) in the 2021 Legislative Session. The ACIA ratified and adopted the same safeguards and legal-liability immunity contained in the Governor’s proclamation. The ACIA was effective February 12, 2021, but the statute specifically states that it is to be applied retroactively to lawsuits filed on or after March 13, 2020.
Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Claim
In the case against Jackson Hospital, the estate of a patient brought a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the hospital was negligent in the care of a patient with COVID-19. The lawsuit alleged that the hospital failed to properly apply oxygen for a patient with COVID-19 while transferring him from one floor of the hospital to another, and he subsequently died. The death occurred after Governor Ivey issued the emergency proclamation but before the Legislature enacted the ACIA.
The hospital answered the complaint and asserted COVID immunity. Following some initial discovery, the hospital asked the court to dismiss the case based on the Governor’s emergency proclamation. The plaintiff argued not only that the Governor’s Order exceeded her powers and was unconstitutional, but also that the ACIA was unconstitutional and could not be applied retroactively. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and held that the claims could proceed under an “exception” to the ACIA, which states that claims can proceed if either the other immunity provisions of the ACIA or the gubernatorial emergency order does not apply. The trial court did not address any constitutional arguments made by the parties. The hospital sought immediate relief from the court’s denial with the Alabama Supreme Court.
Alabama Supreme Court’s Decision
In a 7-1 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court not only held that the Governor’s Executive Order was a proper exercise of her authority under the AEMA, but that the ACIA’s retroactive provisions were applicable to the case. The Court stated that the ACIA provides “broad immunity to health care providers from negligence actions stemming from medical care provided in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.” There was no question that the care provided was related to COVID-19. Therefore, the court held that the plain language of the COVID statute made the hospital immune from suit.
Although the plaintiff argued that the retroactive application of the statute was unconstitutional because her cause of action had vested prior to the enactment of the ACIA, the Court found that the Governor’s proclamation was a proper exercise of power thereby preventing the cause of action from vesting. The Court also noted that the Legislature had explicitly ratified the Executive Order at the time it passed the ACIA.
This is the second case where the Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the enforceability and application of COVID immunity. The first case was Ex parte Triad, 2024 WL 295247 (Ala. 2024), which involved a less direct COVID connection. In that case, the plaintiff tripped and fell while leaving the hospital after receiving treatment for COVID-19. The Court held that because the patient/injured party had to use a specific entrance to obtain treatment for COVID-19, the ACIA applied to her claims.
What It Means For Future Claims?
Although these cases are helpful for those claims that accrued during the pandemic, the ACIA terminated by its terms as of “December 31, 2021, or one year after a declared health emergency relating to Coronavirus expires, whichever is later.” The public health emergency ended on October 31, 2021; therefore, the ACIA terminated on October 31, 2022. Any claims related to COVID-19 that accrued after that date would not be covered by the ACIA.
Angie Cameron Smith is a Partner at Burr & Forman LLP practicing exclusively in the firm’s Health Care Practice Group. Angie may be reached at (205) 458-5209 or acsmith@burr.com.
