Manginelli v. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: D'AURIA, J.
• Citation: Manginelli v. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc., 347 Conn. 581, 298 A.3d 263 (Conn. 2023)
• Docket Number: SC 20767, (SC 20768)
• Decision Date: 08 August 2023
• Parties: Kimberly MANGINELLI, Conservator (Estate of Darlene Matejek), et al. v. REGENCY HOUSE OF WALLINGFORD, INC., et al.

347 Conn. 581

298 A.3d 263

Kimberly MANGINELLI, Conservator (Estate of Darlene Matejek), et al.

v.REGENCY HOUSE OF WALLINGFORD, INC., et al.

SC 20767, (SC 20768)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 27, 2023

Officially Released August 8, 2023^*

Michael S. Taylor, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque, Hartford, and, on the brief, Cristin E. Sheehan, Christina Canales, and Gina Hall, Hartford, for the appellants (defendants).

Robert C. Lubus, Jr., Waterbury, with whom was Andrew S. Marcucci, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Joshua Perry, solicitor general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Michael K. Skold, deputy solicitor general, for the state of Connecticut as amicus curiae.

Ryan K. Sullivan, Shelton, and Julianne Lombardo Klaassen filed briefs for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

Jennifer L. Cox and Jennifer A. Osowiecki, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Hospital Association as amicus curiae.

Bryan M. Killian, Hartford, filed a brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae.

Keith M. Blumenstock, David J. Robertson and Jeannine M. Foran, Bridgeport, filed a brief for Athena Health Care Associates, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Angeline Ioannou and Timothy M. Gondek, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Seeley, Js.

D'AURIA, J.

For approximately three and one-half years, the world has battled against the COVID-19 pandemic. As we explained in Casey v. Lamont , 338 Conn. 479, 258 A.3d 647 (2021), at the height of the pandemic, due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, "[a]round the country—indeed [around] the world—large segments of economic activity [had] been severely disrupted, if not fallen into collapse, millions of people [had] lost their employment, many hospitals and other health-care operations [had] been overrun by gravely ill and dying patients, and extraordinary lockdowns ordered by government officials, in an effort to abate the rate of infection ... limited the free flow of personal and commercial activity." Id. at 482, 258 A.3d 647. Addressing these issues, on March 10, 2020, Governor Ned Lamont issued a declaration of public health and civil preparedness emergencies, proclaiming a state of emergency throughout the state of Connecticut as a result of COVID-19. Then, on April 5, 2020, Governor Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7U, which he subsequently amended on April 7, 2020, by issuing Executive Order No. 7V, § 6, which provides, among other things, immunity from suit and liability to health care providers under certain circumstances relating to COVID-19.

In a companion case also decided today, we interpreted the scope of immunity afforded by Executive Order No. 7V as it related to acts or omissions undertaken in good faith by health care professionals and health care facilities while providing health care services in support of the state's COVID-19 effort. See Mills v. Hartford HealthCare Corp ., 347 Conn. 524, –––– A.3d –––– (2023). In the present public interest appeal certified under General Statutes § 52-265a, we must determine the scope of this immunity as it particularly relates to acts or omissions undertaken because of an alleged lack of resources attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal to this court, the defendants, Regency House of Wallingford, Inc., and National Health Care Associates, Inc., claim that the trial court improperly denied their motion to dismiss the wrongful death claims filed by the plaintiff, Kimberly Manginelli, both in her individual capacity and as administratrix of the estate of Darlene Matejek.¹ Specifically, the defendants argue that the trial court incorrectly determined that they had failed to establish that the immunity provided by Executive Order No. 7V applied to the alleged acts and omissions at issue. According to the defendants, the trial court's error was premised on its overly narrow interpretation of the order as applying only when the alleged acts and/ or omissions involved the diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19 patients. We agree with the defendants that the trial court too narrowly construed the language of the order but nevertheless hold that the defendants failed to establish that the immunity afforded by that order applied in this case. Accordingly, on this record, we uphold the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss.

The following facts, as alleged in the complaint or as established by uncontested evidence submitted in conjunction with the motion to dismiss, are relevant to this appeal. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc., operates a nursing home named Regency House of Wallingford Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Regency House) with National Health Care Associates, Inc., providing guidance to Regency House regarding administrative functions. Beginning in 2014, Matejek lived at Regency House. The defendants’ care plan for Matejek specified that she required assistance for bed and wheelchair transfers. On or about April 26, 2020, Matejek fell during a bed transfer. The defendants’ staff at Regency House placed Matejek back into her bed, did not immediately report the fall to her family, and failed to treat her pain. The defendants’ staff at Regency House also did not obtain medical treatment for Matejek for two days. Eventually, she was transported to a hospital, where physicians diagnosed Matejek with left and right femur fractures, which permanently disabled both of Matejek's legs. After receiving treatment for her fractured left and right femurs at the hospital, Matejek was returned to Regency House to undergo additional medical treatment and rehabilitative care, although the defendants’ staff at Regency House failed to adequately provide the prescribed physical therapy. Her fall and the delay in treatment that followed also led Matejek to suffer a heart arrythmia, atrial fibrillation, severe anxiety and stress, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of these injuries, Matejek died on December 29, 2020.

The plaintiff, both on behalf of Matejek as administratrix of her estate and in her individual capacity, in which she seeks damages for loss of consortium, filed a complaint against the defendants for Matejek's treatment at Regency House and death, alleging twelve counts of wrongful death under General Statutes § 52-555, based on medical negligence and medical recklessness. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and/or reckless in that they failed to obtain immediate medical treatment for Matejek's injuries, which required surgical intervention; failed initially to report the fall; failed to treat Matejek's pain; failed to obtain necessary medical treatment for two days; failed to implement the plan of care for Matejek prior to the fall; and failed to provide the physician-ordered physical therapy after Matejek returned to Regency House from the hospital.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming immunity from suit pursuant to Executive Order No. 7V on the ground that the order applied to "acts or omissions undertaken because of a lack of resources, attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, that renders the health care professional or health care facility unable to provide the level or manner of care that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and which resulted in the damages at issue ...." In support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants submitted an affidavit from Donna Dwyer, the Director of Nursing at Regency House from May, 2017, to January, 2021, detailing the administrative challenges caused by the sudden appearance of the new virus. These obstacles included, but were not limited to, adapting to frequent changes in COVID-19 guidance, staff shortages due to virus exposure, shortages of personal protective equipment, increased phone call volume, the weakened condition of Regency House residents, and increased requests for nurse evaluations. Dwyer averred that, during the week of Matejek's fall, Regency House "was at the height of its first COVID-19 outbreak." Although Dwyer did not provide any details as to the actual treatment provided to Matejek, the defendants argued that they treated her while supporting the state's COVID-19 response, thus rendering them immune from liability under Executive Order No. 7V. The defendants reasoned that the governor intended the order to be far-reaching to ensure that health care workers did not fear legal repercussions when making good faith efforts to treat COVID-19 patients.

The plaintiff objected to the motion to dismiss, asserting that Matejek's injuries did not involve any connection to COVID-19 treatment, placing the defendants’ activities outside of the protections of Executive Order No. 7V. The plaintiff acknowledged that Dwyer's affidavit broadly and accurately explained the defendants’ COVID-19 protocols and the effects of the pandemic on Regency House but argued that the defendants had failed to provide the trial court with any evidence regarding how COVID-19 specifically impacted the care that Matejek received.² Further, the plaintiff reasoned that the defendants’ proposed interpretation of Executive Order No. 7V would unreasonably shield health care actors from liability, regardless of whether the medical treatment in question was connected to the pandemic.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, citing the decision in Mills v. Hartford HealthCare Corp ., judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-20-6134761-S, 2021 WL 4895676 (September 27, 2021) (Budzik, J .), as particularly persuasive for narrowly applying the scope of Executive Order No. 7V only to "instances involving the treatment of COVID-19 patients." The defendants then sought certification to appeal³ pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a and Practice Book § 83-1, which the Chief Justice granted.

On appeal, the defendants...