The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit against New Jersey Governor Philip Murphy and Health Commissioner Judith Persichilli over COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes, ruling that the state officials are protected by qualified immunity.
The case, *Estate of Frances D. DeRosa v. Philip Murphy* (3d Cir. 2026), involved the estates of three nursing home residents who died during the pandemic: Frances D. DeRosa, Margaret MacKenzie, and Russell Murray. Their administrators filed suit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, creating a class action lawsuit against the state officials in their individual capacities.
According to the Third Circuit opinion filed Jan. 23, approximately 10,000 elderly residents of New Jersey nursing homes and veterans' homes died during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs attributed these deaths to what they characterized as "a flawed public health policy that deliberately under-prioritized the safety of nursing homes."
The lawsuit brought claims under both the United States Constitution and the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r. The plaintiffs sought to hold Murphy and Persichilli personally liable for their roles in developing and implementing pandemic response policies affecting long-term care facilities.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro, writing for the three-judge panel that included Judges Patty Shwartz and Cindy Chung, acknowledged the tragic nature of the losses. "Plaintiffs suffered tragic losses during the pandemic," Ambro wrote. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to make the necessary legal showing to overcome qualified immunity protections.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability for constitutional violations unless they violated "clearly established" law that a reasonable person would have known. The doctrine has become increasingly important in cases involving government responses to emergencies and public health crises.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey initially granted the state officials' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. District Judge Edward S. Kiel presided over the original case, which was filed in 2022 as case number 1:22-cv-02301.
The Third Circuit's decision was submitted under Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) and designated as "not precedential," meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent for future cases. The court noted in a footnote that the disposition "does not constitute binding precedent" under Internal Operating Procedure 5.7.
The case represents one of several legal challenges across the country related to government responses to COVID-19 in nursing homes. Long-term care facilities were among the hardest hit during the pandemic, with residents facing higher mortality rates due to their age, underlying health conditions, and congregate living situations.
The lawsuit specifically targeted Murphy and Persichilli in their individual capacities, rather than in their official roles as state officials. This distinction is crucial in qualified immunity cases, as suing officials individually opens them to personal financial liability if immunity protections do not apply.
The Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which formed part of the legal basis for the lawsuit, establishes federal standards for nursing home care and residents' rights. The law requires nursing homes to provide services and activities to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident.
New Jersey, like many states, faced difficult decisions during the early months of the pandemic regarding resource allocation, hospital capacity, and long-term care facility policies. The state implemented various measures aimed at protecting nursing home residents, though the plaintiffs argued these policies were inadequate.
The case highlights ongoing legal and policy debates about government accountability during public health emergencies. While courts have generally been reluctant to second-guess public health decisions made during crisis situations, families and advocacy groups continue to seek legal remedies for perceived failures in protecting vulnerable populations.
The Third Circuit's affirmation of qualified immunity protections suggests that courts remain hesitant to impose individual liability on government officials for pandemic response decisions, even when those decisions may have had tragic consequences. The ruling reinforces the high legal bar plaintiffs must meet to overcome immunity protections in cases involving government emergency responses.
The decision does not preclude other potential legal avenues for the families, though the qualified immunity ruling presents a significant obstacle to holding individual officials personally accountable for pandemic policies. The case underscores the ongoing legal challenges facing families seeking accountability for COVID-19 deaths in institutional settings.