State Officials Granted Immunity in COVID-Related Nursing Home Deaths Case

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a proposed class action against New Jersey government officials representing families of nursing home residents who tragically died early in the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision comes in the wake of approximately 10,000 elderly residents from New Jersey nursing homes and veterans’ homes succumbing to the virus during this challenging time. Notably, New Jersey reached a $53 million settlement with the families of 119 seniors who passed away in state-run veterans’ homes.

The plaintiffs in this case are the daughters and estate administrators of three private-nursing-home residents who died in April and May 2020 after contracting COVID-19. They attribute these deaths to policies implemented by the New Jersey Department of Health, particularly a directive aimed at keeping hospital beds available. This policy prohibited nursing homes from denying admissions to patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the state failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for both patients and staff.

The estates filed suit against the governor, health commissioner, and other New Jersey officials, claiming that the deaths resulted from a flawed public health policy that neglected the safety of nursing homes. The families’ complaint alleged violations of statutory and constitutional rights, including the right to life, safe conditions, bodily integrity, freedom from state-created danger, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

However, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court disallowed the class action, concluding that the families did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified immunity that protects government officials for their actions and policies during the pandemic. The federal appeals court upheld the federal district court’s earlier dismissal of the class action on similar grounds.

The families contended that just two weeks before the state issued its policy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that substantial mortality could be avoided if long-term care facilities acted swiftly to prevent exposure to COVID-19. Medical professionals and experts cautioned the state health department against the policy, asserting that separating residents was impractical, contamination was almost inevitable, and the directive would lead to unnecessary deaths, as outlined in the complaint.

Despite these warnings, the state proceeded with the policy. By the end of the pandemic, New Jersey’s nursing homes had a per-capita COVID-19 death rate of 16%, the highest in the nation.

The appeals court elaborated on the challenges of overcoming the immunity granted to state officials, explaining why the plaintiffs fell short of their burden. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” the court noted. This doctrine aims to provide government officials with the necessary latitude to make reasonable yet mistaken judgments regarding open legal questions.

Consequently, “officials do not lose qualified immunity simply because a judge, with the benefit of hindsight, believes that an official has committed a wrong.” The judges also emphasized that qualified immunity “protects even those officials who exercise extraordinarily poor judgment” from civil damages unless plaintiffs can meet the requirements to overcome it.

To successfully challenge the immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate two key points: first, that the state’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and second, that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the conduct. The appellate judges found that the plaintiffs did not adequately show how the state’s actions violated their rights and failed to cite relevant cases or evidence that would have alerted public officials to the potential violation of rights.

For instance, the families argued that since the nursing homes were locked down with all visitation prohibited, the residents were involuntarily committed patients, thus placing the state responsible for their safety and well-being. However, the court determined that the decedents were voluntary residents of private nursing homes, not involuntarily institutionalized, and the state did not compel them to reside there against their will.

“We do not doubt the pain of plaintiffs’ losses during the pandemic or the imperfection of New Jersey’s response to it,” the court stated. “But qualified immunity provides state officials with reasonable doubt in the exercise of their professional duties. To overcome qualified immunity, the law requires certain showings, and plaintiffs fall far short of making those showings.”

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the state officials are entitled to qualified immunity and upheld the dismissal of the claims against them.

Top Photo: A resident from St. Joseph’s Senior Home is loaded into a bus in Woodbridge, N.J., Wednesday, March 25, 2020. More than 90 residents of the nursing home in Woodbridge were transferred to a facility in Whippany after several tested positive for COVID-19, according to a spokeswoman for CareOne, which operates the Whippany facility. The facility has moved its residents to other facilities to accommodate the new arrivals. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a proposed class action against New Jersey government officials representing families of nursing home residents who tragically died early in the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision comes in the wake of approximately 10,000 elderly residents from New Jersey nursing homes and veterans’ homes succumbing to the virus during this challenging time. Notably, New Jersey reached a $53 million settlement with the families of 119 seniors who passed away in state-run veterans’ homes.

The plaintiffs in this case are the daughters and estate administrators of three private-nursing-home residents who died in April and May 2020 after contracting COVID-19. They attribute these deaths to policies implemented by the New Jersey Department of Health, particularly a directive aimed at keeping hospital beds available. This policy prohibited nursing homes from denying admissions to patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the state failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for both patients and staff.

The estates filed suit against the governor, health commissioner, and other New Jersey officials, claiming that the deaths resulted from a flawed public health policy that neglected the safety of nursing homes. The families’ complaint alleged violations of statutory and constitutional rights, including the right to life, safe conditions, bodily integrity, freedom from state-created danger, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

However, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court disallowed the class action, concluding that the families did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified immunity that protects government officials for their actions and policies during the pandemic. The federal appeals court upheld the federal district court’s earlier dismissal of the class action on similar grounds.

The families contended that just two weeks before the state issued its policy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that substantial mortality could be avoided if long-term care facilities acted swiftly to prevent exposure to COVID-19. Medical professionals and experts cautioned the state health department against the policy, asserting that separating residents was impractical, contamination was almost inevitable, and the directive would lead to unnecessary deaths, as outlined in the complaint.

Despite these warnings, the state proceeded with the policy. By the end of the pandemic, New Jersey’s nursing homes had a per-capita COVID-19 death rate of 16%, the highest in the nation.

The appeals court elaborated on the challenges of overcoming the immunity granted to state officials, explaining why the plaintiffs fell short of their burden. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” the court noted. This doctrine aims to provide government officials with the necessary latitude to make reasonable yet mistaken judgments regarding open legal questions.

Consequently, “officials do not lose qualified immunity simply because a judge, with the benefit of hindsight, believes that an official has committed a wrong.” The judges also emphasized that qualified immunity “protects even those officials who exercise extraordinarily poor judgment” from civil damages unless plaintiffs can meet the requirements to overcome it.

To successfully challenge the immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate two key points: first, that the state’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and second, that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the conduct. The appellate judges found that the plaintiffs did not adequately show how the state’s actions violated their rights and failed to cite relevant cases or evidence that would have alerted public officials to the potential violation of rights.

For instance, the families argued that since the nursing homes were locked down with all visitation prohibited, the residents were involuntarily committed patients, thus placing the state responsible for their safety and well-being. However, the court determined that the decedents were voluntary residents of private nursing homes, not involuntarily institutionalized, and the state did not compel them to reside there against their will.

“We do not doubt the pain of plaintiffs’ losses during the pandemic or the imperfection of New Jersey’s response to it,” the court stated. “But qualified immunity provides state officials with reasonable doubt in the exercise of their professional duties. To overcome qualified immunity, the law requires certain showings, and plaintiffs fall far short of making those showings.”

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the state officials are entitled to qualified immunity and upheld the dismissal of the claims against them.

Top Photo: A resident from St. Joseph’s Senior Home is loaded into a bus in Woodbridge, N.J., Wednesday, March 25, 2020. More than 90 residents of the nursing home in Woodbridge were transferred to a facility in Whippany after several tested positive for COVID-19, according to a spokeswoman for CareOne, which operates the Whippany facility. The facility has moved its residents to other facilities to accommodate the new arrivals. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)