The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed a Garfield County District Court ruling that had granted summary judgment to a nursing home and physician in a case involving the death of a nursing home resident during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Larry Austbo, surviving spouse of Marilyn Darlene Austbo, brought the case against Greenbriar Nursing Home Number Two, Inc., doing business as Greenbriar Skilled Nursing, along with H. Thomas Snyder M.D., PLLC, and Dr. Tom Snyder. The district court had initially ruled in favor of the defendants, but the state's highest court disagreed with that determination.
The case centered on complex questions involving federal and state laws enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to limit liability for healthcare providers. Specifically, the court had to interpret and apply the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation Act, commonly known as the PREP Act, alongside Oklahoma's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability Act.
District Judge Lance Schneiter had granted summary judgment in favor of the nursing home and physician defendants in the underlying case. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found this ruling was incorrect and reversed the decision.
The PREP Act, enacted by Congress, provides immunity from liability for certain claims related to the administration of medical countermeasures during public health emergencies. The law was designed to encourage the development and deployment of medical countermeasures by providing liability protections to healthcare providers and others involved in pandemic response efforts.
Similarly, Oklahoma's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability Act was enacted by the state legislature to provide specific protections for healthcare providers treating patients during the pandemic. These state-level protections were intended to shield healthcare workers and facilities from certain types of litigation related to COVID-19 care.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that the case presented novel legal questions regarding the interpretation and application of these pandemic-era liability protections. The court stated that there was no binding precedent or prior ruling on these specific issues, which prompted the court to retain the appeal for decision rather than allowing it to be decided by a lower appellate court.
The interaction between federal PREP Act protections and state COVID-19 liability laws has created a complex legal landscape that courts across the country are still working to navigate. Healthcare providers have argued that these protections are essential to ensure they can provide care during public health emergencies without fear of excessive litigation. Patients and families, meanwhile, have maintained that these protections should not shield providers from accountability for substandard care.
In reversing the district court's summary judgment ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact remained that precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court's decision suggests that the liability protections provided by the federal PREP Act and state COVID-19 law may not be as broad as the defendants had argued.
The case now returns to the Garfield County District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. This means that Mr. Austbo's claims against the nursing home and physician will continue in the trial court, where factual disputes can be resolved and the case can proceed toward trial if necessary.
The reversal represents a potential shift in how Oklahoma courts will interpret pandemic-era liability protections. The decision could impact other pending cases involving similar claims against healthcare providers for care provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For nursing homes and other healthcare facilities, the ruling suggests that the liability protections they believed they had under federal and state COVID-19 laws may be more limited than previously understood. This could lead to increased scrutiny of care decisions made during the pandemic and potentially more litigation challenging the quality of care provided.
The case also highlights the ongoing legal complications arising from the intersection of federal and state laws enacted during the pandemic. As courts continue to interpret these provisions, healthcare providers and patients alike are seeking clarity on the scope of liability protections and patient rights.
While the full text of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's opinion has not yet been released for publication and remains subject to potential revision, the court's action in reversing the district court's ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings provides an initial indication of how the state's highest court views these pandemic liability issues.
The outcome of this case on remand could establish important precedent for how similar cases involving nursing home care during the COVID-19 pandemic will be resolved in Oklahoma courts.