Attorney, Christopher Warmbold of Meyers & Flowers LLC, appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 to deliver oral argument in the James et al. v. Geneva Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC litigation involving interpretation of Governor J.B. Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-19 (“EO20-19”) which provided immunity to health care facilities for negligence claims during the early stages of the Coronavirus outbreak. The issue before the Illinois Supreme Court relates to the four wrongful death lawsuits against Geneva Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC (“Bria”) attorneys Peter Flowers, Michael Lenert, and Christopher Warmbold have been prosecuting against Bria for taking inadequate protective measures leaving its vulnerable elderly residents defenseless against the community spread of the coronavirus. In order to avoid liability for those tragic deaths, Bria has argued EO20-19 provides them with immunity for negligence.
Attorney Warmbold argued the Court must read EO20-19 in its entirety in order to properly understand the specific circumstances Governor Pritzker was targeting in order for immunity to apply. “It’s not just the simple act of adding a bed or storing [personal protective equipment] or preparing to treat COVID. You have to actually provide a health care service in response to the pandemic.” Warmbold argued. EO20-19 also states that the immunity applies if injury or death occurred “at a time when” the facility was engaged in assisting the state’s COVID-19 response, Warmbold told the Court. “That limiting language was intended to immunize only those healthcare facilities that were actively assisting the state’s COVID-19 response, and it does not mean storing a box of PPE on one day would grant immunity for negligent conduct that occurred a week later” he told the justices.
According to Mr. Warmbold, “EO20-19 didn’t say, ‘store PPE and you’re negligence free.’ The Court needs to employ the cannons of statutory construction when examining EO20-19 to understand Governor Pritzker’s actual intent and also so it is applied in a way that will avoid absurdities and injustices from occurring such as immunizing the amputation of the wrong limb simply because the health care facility had stored a box of personal protective equipment in a closet at the time the injury occurred.”
Attorneys and litigants throughout the state have been actively following this matter due to the wide-ranging implications that will follow depending on how EO20-19 is interpreted by the Court. The entire oral argument is now available in video and audio format on the Illinois Supreme Court’s website: Supreme Court Oral Argument Audio and Video (illinoiscourts.gov). We will provide an update on the outcome of this matter as soon as the Supreme Court issues its decision.