Background
John Wayne Jarrett, acting as administrator of Rose Jarrett’s estate, sued nurse practitioner Julie McGhee for medical negligence. The complaint alleged that Rose Jarrett, who had undergone surgery and developed an intestinal leak, entered a rehabilitation facility where McGhee practiced in July 2021. After elevated white-blood-cell counts, Jarrett was transferred to another hospital, where exploratory surgery found a massive intra-abdominal abscess and fecal peritonitis. The complaint alleged that resulting sepsis and other complications contributed to her death in May 2022.
McGhee sought dismissal and summary judgment under section 21(c) of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, arguing that she was immune for care rendered during the COVID-19 disaster. The De Kalb County circuit court agreed, concluding that the disaster proclamation triggered statutory immunity and that McGhee had acted at the State’s request.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, reversed and remanded. It held that McGhee had not established entitlement to section 21(c) immunity. Under the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in James v. Geneva Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, the statutory immunity requires a triggering State request, and the relevant COVID-era executive orders that invoked that immunity had expired well before McGhee treated Jarrett in July 2021.
The executive order then in force, Executive Order No. 2021-14, did not provide health-care-worker immunity. McGhee’s generalized affidavit and deposition testimony about following IDPH guidance, attending meetings, and working during the pandemic did not identify a sufficiently specific State request or supply legal authority that agency guidelines themselves constituted one. Because immunity is an affirmative defense, McGhee bore the initial burden; it never shifted to Jarrett to rebut her conclusory assertions.
Key Takeaways
- A disaster proclamation alone does not establish section 21(c) immunity.
- COVID-related executive orders granting or triggering immunity must have been in effect when the alleged negligent conduct occurred.
- A defendant asserting immunity must support each element with specific admissible facts, not generalized statements about pandemic guidance or State policies.
Why It Matters
The decision limits reliance on Illinois emergency-management immunity in health-care negligence cases arising after the pertinent COVID executive orders expired. It also underscores that defendants invoking immunity on dismissal or summary judgment must prove the affirmative defense with particularized evidence of a State request for the assistance at issue.