Florida Justice Reform Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Meet the President
  • Legislative
    • On the Front Line
    • On The Front Line 2025
    • Achievements
    • 2025 Legislation
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Member
    • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
    • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu
Florida Justice Reform Institute

As exposed health care workers seek legal remedies, who’s liable for lack of personal protective equipment?

April 2, 2020/in ABA Journal

 

ABA Journal

As exposed health care workers seek legal remedies, who’s liable for lack of personal protective equipment?

BY DARLENE RICKER – APRIL 2, 2020, 11:35 AM CDT

COVID-19 Image from Shutterstock.com.

Attorney Blake Horwitz has been fielding calls from health care workers since he filed a coronavirus-related complaint on behalf of a nurse against a Chicago hospital March 23.

“It’s always the same story,” he says.

Within three days, he says he received about 40 calls from doctors and nurses across the country asking about legal remedies they may have because of exposure to COVID-19 and a lack of personal protective equipment, or PPE. Invariably, their main concern is the dangers to which they’re being exposed.

“Doctors and nurses are very nervous about the protective equipment issued to them, but [even after they complain] they’re told they have to work anyway,” Horwitz says.

Horwitz’s client, Lauri Mazurkiewicz filed a whistleblower complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against Northwestern Memorial Hospital on March 23. The complaint alleges retaliatory discharge, violation of the Illinois whistleblower statute and respondeat superior.

Mazurkiewicz alleged that she was fired the day after she attempted to disclose public corruption and wrongdoing. On March 18, Mazurkiewicz sent an email to about 50 co-workers and supervisors, alerting them that the standard surgical masks that the hospital required them to wear did not provide adequate protection from COVID-19. She urged that N95 masks, which the hospital did not provide and allegedly prohibited workers to wear, should be provided.

When she reported to work wearing an N95 mask from her personal supply, Mazurkiewicz said, she was ordered to remove it. She refused to do so but says she offered to wear the hospital-issued mask over it. The hospital declined, Mazurkiewicz said, and terminated her the following day.

“I think N95s are going to start being distributed real quickly,” says Horwitz about the effects that he anticipates this lawsuit may have.

He represents Mazurkiewicz along with Jeffrey C. Grossich at the Blake Horwitz Law Firm in Chicago.

‘NOVEL LEGAL CAUSES OF ACTION’

While employment law is an obvious legal vehicle of choice for this sort of case, violation of whistleblower protections is relatively new territory. But as more hospitals seek to silence health care workers, such allegations are growing.

Lashonda Council-Rogers. Photo courtesy of Council & Associates.
“I expect some very novel legal causes of action are coming, but only time will tell which of them are appropriate,” says attorney Lashonda Council-Rogers, owner of Council & Associates in Atlanta. “We’re not operating under a blueprint. This is uncharted territory.”

Another case that’s gotten social media attention is that of Dr. Ming Lin, an emergency room physician at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Washington. Lin said he was terminated in late March after he spoke out against inadequate protective measures for medical professionals treating COVID-19 patients. (As of this article’s publication time, Lin has reportedly not filed suit.) Famed government whistleblower Edward Snowden chimed in on Twitter, decrying Lin’s removal.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION

When state action is involved, violation of constitutional rights has been raised in pandemic cases filed by health care workers. In 2015, an infectious disease public health nurse from Doctors Without Borders sued former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in U.S. district court in Newark, Jersey.

Kaci Hickox alleged violation of her rights to substantive and procedural due process and for false imprisonment and invasion of privacy under the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In conjunction with her private counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey represented her, as the national ACLU did for Snowden.

The case settled in 2017 on nonfinancial terms and with neither side conceding liability. Under the settlement, anyone quarantined in New Jersey can contest the order and also has the rights to have legal counsel, to be given prior notice of any hearings, and to send and receive communications.

There is some precedent for respondeat superior claims. During the Ebola crisis, a nurse who contracted the disease in 2014 while caring for the first person to be diagnosed with it in the United States sued the parent company of the Dallas hospital where she worked. The case settled in 2016.

Nina Pham, an intensive care nurse, sued the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and claimed that it “wholly failed to ensure that appropriate policies, procedures and equipment were in place.” She called herself “a casualty of a hospital system’s failure to prepare for a known and impending medical crisis.”

Ebola cases may provide “somewhat of a model,” Council-Rogers says. But she cautions that there are differences between the transmission of Ebola and COVID-19, and that pandemic cases can be fact-specific.

“Hospitals have a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment, but some facilities don’t have the proper equipment,” she says.

For Mazurkiewicz’s case, which focuses on the right to wear an N95 mask, Council-Rogers asks: “Did the hospital have N95s available? If so, they should have provided them.”

Council-Rogers says she has received numerous calls from medical professionals who are treating COVID-19 cases. They’re asking what legal recourse they may have against a health care facility that employs them and how to protect themselves from legal liability.

LIMITING LIABILITY

Still, there are legal defenses available to hospitals and medical facilities. Council-Rogers suggests that causation in some cases could be difficult to prove and says they’re operating in an unprecedented state of emergency.

“This is a call for all hands on deck,” Council-Rogers says, with many doctors and nurses not focusing on liability. “This is a good Samaritan situation. Their No. 1 goal is to save lives and ask forgiveness later.”

Attorney William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute in Tallahassee, Florida, is urging Florida officials to limit the liability of physicians and nurses treating COVID-19 patients.

“What our health care workers are doing now is extraordinary,” Large says. “Some nurses are called in and work 15 straight shifts. Why shouldn’t they get the benefit of the Good Samaritan Act?”

In a March letter to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, three medical organizations (the Florida Justice Reform Institute, the Florida Medical Association, the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association) and more than 30 supporting organizations urged DeSantis offer good Samaritan protection by executive order.

Two other solutions in the letter include extending good Samaritan immunity (which currently applies only to volunteers) to paid health care providers and extending sovereign immunity (which currently applies to only public health employees) to private health care providers.

Advocates want to eliminate the potential snare of professional liability for physicians related to COVID-19 cases. Large gives an example of a doctor who can’t make a definitive diagnosis based on symptoms or outpatient tests and sends the patient to a hospital for inpatient testing.

“But now they can’t because hospitals need the beds for COVID-19 cases,” he says, adding that this scenario could expose the doctor to potential medical malpractice claims. “There could be future lawsuits against doctors who had very rational reasons for doing what they did.”

Darlene Ricker, a legal affairs writer and book editor based in Lexington, Kentucky, is a former staff writer and editor for the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/as-exposed-health-care-workers-seek-legal-remedies-whos-liable-for-lack-of-personal-protective-equipment 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-04-02 15:56:102024-11-25 09:57:10As exposed health care workers seek legal remedies, who’s liable for lack of personal protective equipment?
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Sunshine State Freezes Caps

July 1, 2010/in ABA Journal

 

ABA Journal

THE NATIONAL PULSE
Sunshine State Freezes Caps
BY JOHN GIBEAUT – JULY 2010

Tampa lawyer C. Steven Yerrid says he didn’t need the job in 1995 when then-Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles came calling on him and 10 other private lawyers to wage war on Big Tobacco.

The four-lawyer firm Yerrid founded in 1989 had already had racked up tens of millions of dollars in judgments and settlements, and the future appeared just as bright.

Yerrid says he joined the tobacco case because of the weed’s pernicious health effects that reach nearly everyone at one time or another, including his own family. And the industry never had lost in court, making it one of the most challenging cases ever.

But 13 years after the state extracted an $11.4 billion settlement from the tobacco industry, grief still flows from the current attorney general, Bill McCollum. He claims another $3.4 billion in lawyer fees owed by the tobacco companies should go to the state.

Though the private lawyers and others regard McCollum’s assertion as little more than a political joke, his argument proved strong enough to persuade the GOP-dominated legislature this spring to impose a $50 million fee cap on private lawyers who represent the state on a contingency basis.

AG McCollum Bill McCollum
Photo courtesy of Florida Governor’s Office

The law becomes effective July 1.

“If they asked me to represent the state of Florida today, I wouldn’t do it,” Yerrid says.

McCollum and the measure’s supporters used the tobacco fees to help marshal the votes they needed in the legislature. And he’s made the new caps an issue in the state’s November gubernatorial election, where he’s the Republican nominee.

BINDING SUCCESSORS
Though some states don’t use outside counsel to fight their battles, and others employ strict legislative oversight, Florida is one of only three states, behind Colorado and Kansas, that demand a cap on fees paid to private lawyers who represent the state.

Attorneys general typically employ outside counsel for litigation when the state lacks either the manpower, expertise or both. Moreover, in Florida’s portion of the national tobacco case, state officials deemed the litigation too risky to fund with tax money, so they reached a 25 percent contingency fee deal with the private lawyers, which they later abandoned after the cases settled.

Under the Florida cap imposed this year, private lawyers would receive 25 percent of any recovery up to $10 million, which drops incrementally to 5 percent for recoveries of more than $25 million. The law limits the maximum payout to $50 million for any matter, regardless of the number of cases filed or number of lawyers working on them.

By comparison, depending on the point where a case ends, state bar rules allow lawyers to collect as much as 40 percent on the first $1 million, down to as little as 15 percent on recov eries of more than $2 million, with no upper limit.

Critics are at a loss for practical motives behind the caps. Since coming to office, McCollum never has hired private lawyers to work for contingency fees. And because McCollum leaves in January, regardless of the outcome in the governor’s race, the critics say all he has done is bind his potential successors, including state Sen. Dan Gelber, a Democrat from Miami Beach who is running for attorney general.

“It’s just so bizarre how silly this thing is,” Gelber says.

The law only applies to the attorney general’s office, presumptively leaving other state agencies free to hire outside lawyers as they see fit. But supporters are eager to curb them as well.

“I think it means we can anticipate that future attorneys general will be the sole ones to file litigation for the state,” says William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, an alliance of business groups backing the cap. “I think that in the future—five to 10 years—a meritorious suit will go through the attorney general, and 99 cents out of every dollar will go to the state treasury.”

McCollum has pressed for broader state acceptance of compensation caps. Months before the legislature acted, he urged the state agency responsible for securities litigation to adopt his policy. This time, as one of three trustees for the state Board of Administration, McCollum had a vote. The board manages $112 billion in state pension funds and $22 billion in other accounts. And McCollum, along with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and Democratic state CFO Alex Sink (who is McCollum’s chief opponent in the gubernatorial election), voted unanimously to cap compensation for a pool of five firms designated in December as standbys to handle major cases involving the state funds.

The move may amount to little more than a gesture. The board only hires its own lawyers in cases where it’s the lead plaintiff, and it hasn’t done so since 1995. That case is still pending, meaning the agency hasn’t paid a dime to its private lawyers. Still, the agency has recovered some $150 million in the last five years in cases where it wasn’t the lead plaintiff.

McCollum declined an interview request, but spokeswoman Sandi Copes, in an e-mail response to questions, maintained caps should discourage pay-to-play deals, where lawyers routinely contribute to both parties and their candidates in hopes of landing state work. Supporters say competitive bidding and extensive public disclosure requirements in agency policy and the new law also should discourage the practice.

(McCollum awarded a no-bid deal to his former law partner to represent the 13 states challenging recently passed federal health care legislation, at $250 an hour to a maximum of $50,000. Copes says the contract falls outside the law because it’s not based on a contingency fee. And with each state’s share divvied up, Florida gets to fight health care at a bargain-basement rate of less than $20 an hour.)

While Sink, the Democrat, opposes the across-the-board caps mandated by legislators, she acquiesced on the board policy, according to staff; she did this partly in an attempt to disarm McCollum of a campaign weapon and because the policy promised few, if any, practical effects on the agency.

“I think you could classify it as that,” says Sink campaign spokeswoman Kyra Jennings.

What irritates some of Florida’s leading plaintiffs lawyers is the drumbeat started by McCollum and the cap’s supporters: That somehow the state would have received more money from the tobacco case had the lawyers been paid less. The fees for private attorneys, however, were separate and apart from the payout to the state.

The state had initially agreed to pay the private lawyers 25 percent of any recovery. But when tobacco settled for $11.4 billion, the industry agreed to pay the lawyer fees, over and above the settlement amount, to be determined by a panel of three arbitrators: one picked by tobacco, the other by the private lawyers and a third by mutual agreement.

To everyone’s surprise, including tobacco’s, the arbitrators awarded the whopping fees, which came out of the companies’ coffers, not the state’s bank account. Had the state honored the first 25 percent contingency fee contract and paid the lawyers with settlement proceeds, the $11.4 billion award would have dropped by nearly $3 billion.

At first, plaintiffs lawyers considered McCollum’s efforts ridiculous. No case before or since has generated the kinds of fees or controversy spawned by tobacco. The only hypothetical situation that would come close would have been an oil spill caused by future off-shore drilling. Then the Deepwater Horizon rig blew April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast, threatening to foul Florida’s sugary white-sand beaches with millions of gallons of oil.

“Now it’s not so damned funny anymore,” says former tobacco lawyer Robert G. Kerrigan of Pensacola.

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
Though Copes maintains that the Florida AG’s office “is fully capable of handling this litigation,” she adds “it defies imagination that a $50 million attorney fee … would not be enough money to pay lawyers to represent this state, even in the most significant cases.”

That’s something Kerrigan would like to see, noting that the cases arising from the infinitely smaller Exxon Valdez spill lasted for more than 20 years. And Kerrigan says litigation against an oil company likely would resemble suing the tobacco industry, from abusive discovery practices to sending 20 or more lawyers to court at a time at $500 an hour each as a show of strength against two or three law-yers for the state.

Oh, sure, Kerrigan says, he’d gladly help the state research legal theories of liability. In fact, he says he’d do that pro bono.

“But to litigate against these scorched-earth guys you’re going to get?” he wonders. “You’re going to cap and trap yourself for decades. I wouldn’t do it.”

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/Sunshine_State_Freezes_Caps/

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2010-07-01 15:59:302024-11-26 09:06:15Sunshine State Freezes Caps
Search Search

FJRI News Categories

FJRI News Archive

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links

  • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
  • About
  • Legislative
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
© 2025 Florida Justice Reform Institute, All Rights Reserved. | Website Hosting & Web Development by RAD TECH
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to X
  • Link to LinkedIn
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top