The Puerto Rico Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling regarding the scope of immunity provided under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) in a case involving alleged medical negligence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, Marchese Torres v. Professional Hospital Guaynabo Inc. y Otros (docket number CC-2025-0426), addresses the legal protections available to healthcare providers when claims of negligence arise from their treatment decisions during a declared public health emergency.
The court's decision is crucial as it impacts how future negligence claims related to COVID-19 treatment will be handled, particularly concerning the immunity granted to healthcare providers under the PREP Act. This ruling affects patients and their families who may seek justice for perceived medical negligence during the pandemic.
Background
The case began when Rita Marchese Torres filed a lawsuit against Professional Hospital Guaynabo and two doctors, Carlos Beauchamp Iglesias and FermÃn Hernández Abad, in August 2024. She claimed $13,000 in damages for the alleged negligence that led to the death of her husband, José Manuel Ibarra GarcÃa, due to COVID-19 complications.
Marchese Torres alleged that when she brought her husband to the hospital on August 17, 2021, he exhibited severe COVID-19 symptoms, including difficulty breathing and chest pain. She claimed that the doctors failed to provide adequate treatment and instead sent him home after a negative rapid COVID-19 test result. The following day, after discovering a positive test result from a laboratory, she took him to another hospital, where he was admitted to intensive care but ultimately passed away on September 8, 2021.
Initially, the hospital and the doctors filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing they were protected by the immunity granted under the PREP Act. The lower court denied this motion, but after further proceedings, it ultimately dismissed the case, stating that the PREP Act provided immunity for their actions. Marchese Torres appealed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.
The Ruling
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled on October 21, 2026, that the lower court's dismissal of Marchese Torres's claims was improper. The court clarified the conditions under which the PREP Act's immunity applies, stating, "it is improper to dismiss a personal injury claim based solely on an automatic application of the immunity granted by the PREP Act when the facts alleged in the complaint do not clearly establish the necessary elements to activate such legal exemption."
The court emphasized that the determination of immunity under the PREP Act requires a careful analysis of the specific circumstances of each case, including whether the healthcare providers acted within the scope of their duties during the public health emergency. The ruling highlighted that the mere use of a covered countermeasure, such as a COVID-19 test, does not automatically shield healthcare providers from liability for negligence.
Impact
This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how claims against healthcare providers will be evaluated in light of the PREP Act. It clarifies that not all actions taken during a public health emergency are immune from legal scrutiny, especially if there are allegations of negligence that warrant further examination. This decision may encourage more patients and families to pursue claims if they believe they have been harmed due to inadequate medical care during the pandemic.
Additionally, the ruling reinforces the importance of thorough judicial review in negligence claims, ensuring that courts carefully consider the facts and circumstances surrounding each case rather than applying blanket immunity. This could lead to more accountability for healthcare providers during public health crises.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Marchese Torres's case will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, allowing her to present her claims against the hospital and the doctors. The decision may also inspire similar cases to be filed or revisited as individuals seek justice for perceived medical negligence during the pandemic. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.