Silva-Rios v. New York Presbyt. Columbia Med. Ctr.

2026 NY Slip Op 00481 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department · February 3, 2026 · No. Index No. 806332/21; Appeal No. 5577; Case No. 2024-04589

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed dismissal of a medical malpractice action alleging that the plaintiff developed pressure ulcers while hospitalized for severe COVID-19. The court held that the defendant hospital was entitled to immunity under New York's Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act because pandemic-related conditions affected the plaintiff's treatment. The court did not reach arguments concerning the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; Kapnick, J.; Michael, J.; Hagler, J.
Jurisdiction
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
Decision date
February 3, 2026
Docket number
Index No. 806332/21; Appeal No. 5577; Case No. 2024-04589
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from an order of Supreme Court, Bronx County, granting defendant hospital's motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint alleging pressure ulcers developed during COVID-19 hospitalization.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Yadira Silva-Rios v. New York Presbyterian Columbia Medical Center
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

medical malpracticehealth lawstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

medical malpracticehealth lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act applied because the plaintiff's treatment was impacted by the hospital's decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.
  2. Whether the defendant's evidentiary submissions sufficiently established that the plaintiff's care was performed in good faith and did not depart from then-existing standards of practice.
  3. Whether the court needed to reach the parties' arguments under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.

Holdings

  1. The EDTPA applied to immunize the defendant because the plaintiff's treatment was impacted by pandemic-related conditions and hospital decisions or activities, including overcapacity, staffing and supply shortages, and COVID-19-related protocols.
  2. The court did not consider plaintiff's argument that the EDTPA was inapplicable because defendant acted recklessly or with gross negligence, because plaintiff abandoned that argument on appeal.
  3. The evidence submitted by defendant was sufficient to show that the care provided to plaintiff was performed in good faith and that defendant did not depart from the then-existing standards of practice.
  4. The court did not reach the parties' PREP Act arguments because affirmance under the EDTPA resolved the appeal.

Key quotations

This action was properly dismissed under the immunity provision of New York's Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act (the EDTPA). (at *1)
Based on these facts, the evidence submitted was sufficient to show that the care provided to plaintiff was performed in good faith and that defendant did not depart from the then-existing standards of practice. (at *1)

Factual background

Yadira Silva-Rios was hospitalized at defendant's facility for COVID-19 from March 26, 2020, through July 24, 2020, and developed pressure ulcers during that treatment. She was sedated, intubated, placed on a ventilator, and spent most of her hospitalization in the cardiac care unit. Defendant submitted evidence that pandemic-related overcapacity, staffing and supply shortages, and personal protective equipment guidelines affected wound-prevention and treatment practices, including the frequency with which staff could turn and reposition patients.

Procedural history

Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an order entered on or about July 9, 2024. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed without costs, holding that the Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act immunized the defendant under the circumstances.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…