- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2025
- Case
- Howard v. Coffee Regional Medical Center, Inc.
- Citation
- 377 Ga. App. 742
- Decided
- November 3, 2025
Corporate healthcare entities do not qualify as auxiliary emergency management workers under GEMA, and the Georgia COVID-19 Pandemic Business Safety Act does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before its August 2020 enactment. Fact issues also remained on individual GEMA immunity.
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed summary judgment for Coffee Regional Medical Center and a physician group in Howard v. Coffee Regional Medical Center, Inc. The court held that corporate entities are not “workers” entitled to immunity under the Georgia Emergency Management Act and that the Georgia COVID-19 Pandemic Business Safety Act does not apply retroactively to malpractice alleged to have occurred in April 2020.
The court also held that fact questions remained on whether the individual physician’s care qualified for GEMA immunity.
Issues Decided
Corporate immunity under GEMA
Decision
The court held that a hospital and physician group do not qualify as “auxiliary emergency management workers” under OCGA 38-3-35(b).
Facts
Angie Howard sued Coffee Regional Medical Center and Coffee County Hospitalist Physicians, LLC, for the wrongful death of her father, David Northcutt. The defendants argued that they were immune under GEMA as auxiliary emergency management workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reasoning
The court applied the ordinary meaning of “worker” and concluded that the term does not include a hospital, corporation, or similar business entity. Although executive orders designated employees, staff, and contractors as auxiliary workers, that designation did not extend to the healthcare institutions themselves.
The court also rejected vicarious immunity. The immunity of an agent does not automatically bar a civil action against the principal.
Individual immunity and causation under GEMA
Decision
The court held that genuine issues of material fact remained on whether Dr. Coggins was engaged in emergency management activity and whether the patient’s death resulted from that activity.
Facts
Northcutt was admitted with altered mental status and tested negative for COVID-19 twice. Despite an order to move him to the ICU because of dangerously low blood pressure, he remained in a regular unit. Dr. Coggins testified that she did not prioritize seeing him because she was unaware of his critical need, not because of pandemic-related constraints. Evidence also showed ICU beds were available.
Reasoning
To establish GEMA immunity, a defendant had to show both emergency management activity and injury resulting from that activity. Evidence that the patient’s death was not caused by COVID-19, and that pandemic conditions did not meaningfully constrain ordinary care, allowed a factfinder to reject the immunity defense.
Retroactivity of the Pandemic Business Safety Act
Decision
The court held that the PBSA, enacted in August 2020, could not be applied retroactively to April 2020 conduct.
Facts
The alleged malpractice occurred in April 2020. The PBSA, enacted on August 5, 2020, imposed a heightened gross-negligence or willful-misconduct burden for COVID-19 liability claims.
Reasoning
Georgia law strongly presumes that statutes apply prospectively unless the legislature clearly says otherwise. The court found no clear indication that the PBSA applied to pre-enactment conduct, so the statute did not change the standard for alleged malpractice that occurred before August 5, 2020.
Commentary
The opinion limits two COVID-era defenses in Georgia medical-malpractice cases. First, hospitals and physician groups cannot claim GEMA immunity simply by characterizing themselves as auxiliary emergency management workers. Second, the PBSA does not retroactively impose a heightened standard on care that predates the statute.
The fact-specific GEMA ruling may matter just as much. Pandemic context alone was not enough. The court looked to whether the provider was actually engaged in emergency management activity and whether the alleged injury resulted from that activity. Evidence that ICU resources were available and that the physician’s own explanation was unrelated to pandemic constraints kept the case from ending at summary judgment.
