A New York appellate court recently ruled on a medical malpractice case involving a gallbladder surgery performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's decision affects the healthcare community and patients seeking accountability for medical errors. The ruling emphasizes the need for healthcare providers to demonstrate how pandemic-related challenges impacted patient care.
The case, Back v. Facey, was decided on June 18, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The plaintiffs, Abraham Back and his spouse, alleged that Dr. Dalkeith G. Facey and his medical team committed malpractice during Back's laparoscopic cholecystectomy, leading to serious postoperative complications. The court's ruling is significant as it addresses the intersection of medical malpractice and emergency healthcare provisions enacted during the pandemic.
Background
The dispute began when Abraham Back visited the emergency department of Massena Hospital on April 2, 2020, with symptoms suggestive of a gallbladder attack. An ultrasound revealed gallstones and mild dilation of the common bile duct. Dr. Facey, a general surgeon, suspected acute cholecystitis and scheduled Back for surgery the following day.
During the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Facey placed surgical clips on the cystic artery. After the surgery, Back developed jaundice and was transferred to another facility. There, imaging tests confirmed that the common bile duct was obstructed by the surgical clips, leading to a diagnosis of obstructive jaundice. Back underwent additional surgery to reconstruct the bile duct. The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, claiming that Facey failed to identify the proper anatomy and improperly placed the surgical clips.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued they were immune from liability under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which provides immunity to healthcare providers during a public health emergency if certain conditions are met.
The court ruled, "defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the care and treatment of Back had been 'impacted by decisions or activities [that were] in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.'"
The court found that the defendants did not demonstrate how the pandemic affected the surgical procedure or the subsequent diagnosis of Back's condition. The ruling emphasized that the core of the plaintiffs' allegations related to surgical errors and misdiagnosis, rather than delays in treatment caused by the pandemic.
Judge Fisher noted that the defendants' evidence, which included testimony about operational changes due to COVID-19, did not establish a direct link between the pandemic and the alleged malpractice. The court stated that the defendants needed to show how their actions during the pandemic specifically impacted the care provided to Back.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for medical malpractice cases, especially those arising during public health emergencies. It clarifies that healthcare providers must provide clear evidence of how their actions were affected by emergency conditions to qualify for immunity under the EDTPA. The court's decision reinforces that patients retain the right to seek accountability for medical errors, even during challenging times like a pandemic.
The ruling also serves as a reminder for healthcare facilities to maintain high standards of care, regardless of external pressures. It highlights the importance of proper surgical practices and accurate diagnoses, which are critical for patient safety and recovery.
What's Next
While the defendants can appeal the ruling, the court's decision stands for now. There are no related cases pending that could influence this ruling. The outcome of this case may encourage other plaintiffs to pursue claims against healthcare providers if they believe they have been harmed due to negligence, especially in the context of emergency situations.