Vaughan v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
MARK H. CONNER Sussex County Courthouse
JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2
Georgetown, DE 19947
February 6, 2024
Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq. Wilson A. Gualpa, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq. Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esq.
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, 500 Delaware Avenue,
Suite 720 Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19899
Attorneys for Defendants. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
RE: Donald Vaughan, Jr., Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Jannis D. Vaughan v. Genesis
Healthcare, Inc.
C.A. No. S22C-07-005 MHC
Dear Counsel,
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. The Court is in receipt of all filings from both parties. After
consideration of the parties’ briefings and all relevant case law this Court has
determined that the Defendant is not entitled to dismissal; therefore, Defendant’s
Motion is DENIED.
As defense counsel is well aware, “[r]ecent decisions of this Court make it
clear that while the PREP Act does provide immunity from suit to covered persons
from losses related to the administration of covered countermeasures, it does not
insulate all covered persons from suit merely because they administered covered
countermeasures.”1 The PREP Act does not “provide blanket immunity to a covered
person (e.g., a facility) merely on account of that entity's having used or administered
covered countermeasures in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The
plaintiff’s claim of injury must have some ‘causal relationship’ to the use or
administration of a covered countermeasure in order to trigger immunity.”2
In the present matter Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was careless and
negligent in its treatment of the decedent. While it may be true that the PREP Act
is not per se inapplicable whenever a complaint’s allegations are characterized as
involving negligent infectious disease protocols, this Court has found that the PREP
Act does not insulate defendants from garden variety negligence claims such as those
alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. It is patently obvious under the recent
decisions made by this Court, several of which defense counsel has been a party to,
1
Moore v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., Del. Super., C.A. No. S21C-12-018 MHC, Conner, J. (Dec.
28, 2023) (Letter Op.).
2
Santo v. Genesis Healthcare, Inc., 2023 WL 3493880 (Del. Super. Ct. May 16, 2023).
2
that PREP Act immunity does not insulate Defendants based on Plaintiff’s
allegations in the Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons Defendants have failed to avail themselves of PREP
Act immunity. Further, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support a viable
cause of action pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark H. Conner
Mark H. Conner
Judge
CC: Prothonotary
3