102 A.D.3d 140
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- PREP Act authorizes HHS to respond to public health emergencies; 2009 H1N1 prompted declarations supporting Peramivir vaccination.
- New York declared a disaster emergency via Governor Paterson to facilitate H1N1 vaccine distribution.
- Defendant St. Lawrence County Public Health Department held a vaccination clinic; a nurse vaccinated plaintiff’s kindergartner without parental consent.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence and battery; defendant moved to dismiss for federal preemption; Supreme Court denied preemption in earlier ruling, but lower court denied dismissal.
- Court addresses whether PREP Act preempts state-law tort claims arising from administration of a covered countermeasure; questions immunity scope and whether lack of consent falls within immunity.
- Court concludes PREP Act preempts state-law negligence and battery claims and immunity covers administration without consent, leading to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PREP Act preempt state tort claims? | Plaintiff argues state claims survive; no federal preemption. | Defendant contends PREP Act preempts all such claims. | Yes, PREP Act preempts. |
| Does PREP Act immunity extend to administration without consent? | Immunity does not cover unconsented administration. | Immunity covers administration by a covered person under a public health emergency. | Yes, immunity extends and precludes state claims. |
| Is dismissal proper due to exclusive federal remedies? | Remedies exist only in state court. | Exclusive federal remedies apply; state claims dismissed. | Dismissal proper; exclusive federal remedies apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1983) (establishes preemption focus on Congressional intent)
- Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1977) (confirms implied/express preemption analysis)
- Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2011) (express preemption analysis under broad framework)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (preemption by statute where state law conflicts with federal requirements)
- Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 35 (2008) (state-law preemption considerations in New York context)
- Matter of Amoah v Mallah Mgt., LLC, 57 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (state-law preemption considerations in appellate context)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (U.S. 2008) (preemption of state tort claims by federal medical device regulation)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 427 (U.S. 2005) (federal preemption with focus on state tort claims)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (confirms scope of federal preemption in statutory scheme)
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1959) (labor relation preemption principles relevant to state regulation)