Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Restrictions/Clarifies Limits on COVID-19 Lawsuits Filed Against Healthcare Facilities
The Illinois Supreme Court held that healthcare facilities may receive immunity from ordinary negligence claims when they were rendering assistance to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the immunity does not extend to willful misconduct.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois adopted special legal protections for certain healthcare providers and other entities assisting the State during the declared disaster. Those protections became the subject of multiple lawsuits involving nursing homes and other healthcare facilities accused of failing to protect residents from COVID-19.
One of the most significant cases was James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 2024 IL 130042. The case arose from several wrongful death lawsuits filed against Geneva Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, also known as Bria Health Services of Geneva, after residents died from COVID-19 complications during the early months of the pandemic.
The nursing home argued that Governor J.B. Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-19 and section 21(c) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act protected it from liability for ordinary negligence. The estates argued that the immunity did not provide the broad protection claimed by the nursing home and that their allegations included willful misconduct.
Quick Answer
The Illinois Supreme Court held that Executive Order 2020-19 triggered immunity under 20 ILCS 3305/21(c) for ordinary negligence claims against healthcare facilities that rendered assistance to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic. The immunity does not cover willful misconduct. The Court did not decide that Geneva Nursing was immune. Instead, it sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether Geneva was actually rendering assistance to the State when the alleged conduct occurred.
This distinction is important because the original article described the immunity as though the nursing home’s alleged infection-control failures automatically defeated immunity. The Supreme Court’s decision was narrower. The Court resolved the legal question concerning the scope of the immunity but left the factual question of whether Geneva qualified for that immunity to the trial court.
The Supreme Court’s opinion was issued on October 18, 2024. The Court affirmed the appellate court’s modified answer to the certified question and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The COVID-19 Lawsuits Against Geneva Nursing
The case involved multiple consolidated wrongful death actions brought by representatives of nursing home residents who died from COVID-19 complications.
According to the complaints, Geneva Nursing and Rehabilitation Center failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the facility during the early stages of the pandemic.
The estates alleged, among other things, that the facility failed to properly isolate residents and staff members who were symptomatic or had tested positive for COVID-19. The complaints also alleged failures involving infection-control procedures, personal protective equipment, staffing practices, sanitation, and the use of medical equipment.
The plaintiffs alleged both ordinary negligence and willful misconduct and contended that the alleged failures contributed to residents contracting COVID-19 and ultimately dying from the disease.
Allegations in the Wrongful Death Claims
Infection Control
The estates alleged that the facility failed to adequately control the spread of COVID-19 among residents and staff.
Quarantine Measures
The complaints alleged failures to properly isolate individuals who exhibited symptoms or had contracted the virus.
Facility Practices
The estates also alleged problems with sanitation, protective equipment, staffing, and other infection-control practices.
At this stage of the litigation, the allegations in the complaints were taken as true for purposes of resolving the legal question presented by the certified appeal. The courts were not deciding whether the estates would ultimately prove those allegations.
Geneva Nursing Sought Immunity
Geneva Nursing moved to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that it was protected by Governor Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-19 and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act.
The nursing home maintained that the immunity provisions protected healthcare facilities that rendered assistance to the State during the pandemic from civil liability for injuries or deaths resulting from ordinary negligence.
Geneva also disputed the plaintiffs’ characterization of the immunity and argued that the legal protections should prevent the negligence claims from proceeding.
The trial court eventually certified a question for interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308. The original question asked whether Executive Order 2020-19 provided “blanket immunity” for ordinary negligence to healthcare facilities that rendered assistance to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Why the Certified Question Was Changed
The appellate court concluded that the phrase “blanket immunity” was misleading because it could suggest that the statute protected a healthcare facility from both ordinary negligence and willful misconduct. The appellate court therefore modified the question to focus specifically on whether the executive order triggered statutory immunity from ordinary negligence claims.
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with that modification.
What Does 20 ILCS 3305/21(c) Say?
The immunity at issue came from 20 ILCS 3305/21(c), part of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act.
The statute provides that a private person, firm, or corporation, and its employees or agents, who render assistance or advice at the request of the State or a political subdivision during an actual or impending disaster are not civilly liable for causing death, injury, or property damage, except in cases of willful misconduct.
Governor Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-19 invoked sections 15 and 21(b)-(c) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act and extended specified civil-liability protections to healthcare professionals, facilities, and volunteers providing assistance in response to COVID-19.
The executive order specifically provided different standards depending on which statutory provision supplied the immunity. For healthcare facilities and other entities covered by section 21, the relevant exception was willful misconduct.
The Immunity Was Not Unlimited
Ordinary Negligence
Covered by the statutory immunity when the healthcare facility satisfies the requirement that it was rendering assistance to the State during the disaster.
Willful Misconduct
Not protected by the section 21(c) immunity. The statute expressly makes willful misconduct an exception to the protection.
The Illinois Supreme Court Confirmed Ordinary Negligence Immunity
The Illinois Supreme Court held that Executive Order 2020-19 triggered the immunity provided by section 21(c) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act.
The Court explained that the statute provides immunity from ordinary negligence to qualifying private persons, firms, corporations, and their employees or agents who render assistance or advice at the request of the State or a political subdivision during an actual or impending disaster.
The Court rejected the suggestion that the immunity was a general protection against all negligence claims involving COVID-19. The statutory requirement that the healthcare facility be rendering assistance to the State was critical.
As a result, the Court answered the modified certified question in the affirmative: Executive Order 2020-19, which triggered the section 21(c) immunity, grants immunity for ordinary negligence claims to healthcare facilities that rendered assistance to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What the Supreme Court Did Not Decide
The Supreme Court did not decide whether Geneva Nursing actually qualified for immunity. It sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether Geneva was rendering assistance to the State during the relevant period. The Court therefore resolved the legal scope of the immunity without resolving the underlying factual question.
What Does “Rendering Assistance to the State” Mean?
The phrase “rendering assistance” became the key factual issue after the Supreme Court’s decision.
The record contained evidence that Geneva Nursing responded to the pandemic and, according to affidavits submitted by the facility, stored personal protective equipment, made beds available for incoming patients, and provided additional staff training involving protective measures such as handwashing.
The estates disputed whether that conduct was enough to establish that Geneva was rendering assistance to the State within the meaning of section 21(c).
Because the immunity depends on that requirement, the trial court was required to determine whether Geneva’s conduct satisfied the statutory standard.
The Supreme Court’s Framework
Was There Assistance?
The facility must establish that it rendered assistance or advice at the request of the State or a political subdivision.
Ordinary Negligence?
If the alleged conduct is ordinary negligence and the statutory requirements are met, the immunity may apply.
Willful Misconduct?
Willful misconduct is expressly outside the protection of the section 21(c) immunity.
What Is Willful Misconduct?
The estates alleged that Geneva’s conduct went beyond ordinary negligence and amounted to willful misconduct. The distinction matters because the statutory immunity expressly excludes willful misconduct.
Illinois courts generally distinguish ordinary negligence from willful and wanton or willful misconduct based on the nature of the defendant’s conduct and the level of disregard for the safety of others. Whether allegations meet the applicable legal standard depends on the particular facts and evidence.
In the Geneva litigation, the estates alleged that the facility failed to take appropriate steps to control infection despite publicly available guidance from governmental and public health authorities. Those allegations were sufficient to put willful misconduct at issue, but the Supreme Court’s certified-question decision did not determine whether the estates would ultimately prove that claim.
Immunity Does Not Automatically End a Case
Even when a healthcare provider invokes the COVID-19 immunity provisions, the court still must determine whether the statutory prerequisites for immunity exist and whether the plaintiff’s allegations fall within the type of conduct the immunity protects.
The Immunity Question Was Narrower Than the Original Lawsuit
The underlying wrongful death cases included numerous allegations concerning Geneva’s infection-control practices and the deaths of residents. The certified appeal, however, did not ask the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether Geneva was negligent or whether its conduct caused the residents’ deaths.
Instead, the Court was asked to decide a specific legal question concerning the scope of the immunity created by Executive Order 2020-19 and section 21(c) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act.
The Supreme Court emphasized that it was not resolving the estates’ substantive claims. Its role was to answer the certified question of law and then return the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Appellate Result
Immunity Question
Ordinary negligence immunity can apply to qualifying healthcare facilities.
Geneva’s Status
Trial court must determine whether Geneva was rendering assistance to the State.
What James v. Geneva Nursing Means for Illinois Nursing Home Claims
James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 2024 IL 130042 established that the COVID-19 immunity provision can protect a qualifying healthcare facility from ordinary negligence claims when the facility was rendering assistance to the State during the pandemic.
The decision does not provide a blanket defense to every COVID-19-related nursing home claim. A facility must first satisfy the statutory requirement that it rendered assistance or advice at the request of the State or a political subdivision during the disaster.
The immunity also does not extend to willful misconduct. This means that the characterization of the defendant’s conduct can remain important even when the defendant establishes that it was assisting the State.
The decision is particularly relevant to older COVID-19 nursing home cases involving conduct that occurred during the period covered by Executive Order 2020-19. The applicable facts, timing, pleadings, and statutory requirements must be evaluated in each individual case.
Talk to a Decatur, IL Nursing Home Negligence Attorney Today
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents and families pursuing claims involving nursing home negligence, abuse, wrongful death, and inadequate care. If you or a loved one was injured in a nursing facility, call our Decatur personal injury lawyers at 217-384-1111 to schedule a free consultation and learn more about your legal options.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 2024 IL 130042
James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 2023 IL App (2d) 220180
Illinois General Assembly: 20 ILCS 3305/21 — No Private Liability
State of Illinois: Executive Order 2020-19
Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act: Section 21(c)
