In the case of
Boyle v. Meyer, No. 1212 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 9, 2025 McLauglin, J., Lane, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court Order denying a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Plaintiff’s personal injury suit alleging negligent exposure to COVID-19 due to a physical therapist use of inadequate safety measures.
In this case, the court reviewed the parameters of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §247d-6d, also known as the PREP Act.
The Defendants sought judgment on the pleadings under the PREP Act and asserted that, due to the fact that the Defendant therapist wore a surgical mask, which was allegedly a covered countermeasure approved pursuant to emergency FDA authorizations during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under the Act.
The court denied the Motion finding various issues of fact relative to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. More specifically, the court noted that the issues of fact as to whether the type of surgical mask utilized by the therapist met the FDA requirements to qualify as a covered countermeasure under the PREP’s Act applicable emergency use authorizations.
The court also found issues of fact as to whether the Defendants qualified as “covered persons” under the PREP Act.
The court additionally noted that there were causation issues that should be left for a jury to decide.
Given these issues of fact, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this
LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,
www.Law.com (Sept. 23, 2025).
