Garcia v. New York City Health And Hospital Corporation

Background

Felipa Garcia filed a negligence lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The complaint alleged that Garcia, an 82-year-old woman, fell while she was a patient at Bellevue Hospital Center and was trying to get out of bed to use the bathroom. She alleged that hospital staff did not properly monitor her, did not respond to her requests for help getting to the bathroom, and did not prevent her from getting out of bed by raising the bedrails.

The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court noted that Garcia’s claim did not arise under federal law and that the parties lacked diversity of citizenship because Garcia was a New York citizen.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act argument

The defendant argued that removal was proper because the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, could immunize it from liability for injuries resulting from the administration or use of certain covered COVID-19 countermeasures. The court acknowledged that the PREP Act might provide a defense depending on how the facts developed.

The court nevertheless held that the negligence claim did not “arise under” the PREP Act. A federal defense generally does not create federal-question jurisdiction, which is the authority of a federal court to hear claims arising under federal law. The court also determined that this was an ordinary negligence case rather than a state-law claim disguising an essentially federal claim. It agreed with the reasoning of a prior federal district court decision that the case could not be removed on federal-question grounds. The court further stated that Congress had not given federal courts exclusive authority to decide PREP Act defenses.

The federal-officer argument

The defendant also relied on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court explained that this form of jurisdiction requires a defendant to be a person or entity acting under a federal officer, to have performed the relevant actions under the color of federal office, and to raise a plausible federal defense.

The defendant argued that it qualified because, in caring for Garcia, it was helping the federal government combat the pandemic. The court rejected that argument. Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute, merely complying with federal directives or regulations is not enough; there must be a special relationship involving assistance with the federal officer’s duties. The court found that relationship lacking. It also relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that a health center does not act under a federal officer merely because it receives federal funding and follows federal requirements and regulations.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to remand. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the federal case, mark the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 25 off the list of open motions, and transmit the file to the Clerk of the New York Supreme Court, New York County. The order addressed the federal court’s jurisdiction and remanded the case; it did not decide the underlying negligence claim.