Page 1

Urgent Care Center Immune From Liability to Maskless Man It Declined to Treat—C.A.

Plaintiff Claims He Could Not Wear Mask for Health Reason; Chavez Says That Doesn’t Matter—Federal Statute Provides Immunity

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday held that AFC Urgent Care of Valencia is statutorily immune from liability to a man who was refused treatment based on his unwillingness to wear mask during the pandemic. The plaintiff claims a breathing problem precluded his compliance.

An urgent care center is immune from liability to a would-be patient it would not treat during the COVID-19 pandemic because he wouldn’t wear a mask, despite his protest that he could not do so for health reasons, namely that he has a deviated septum causing respiratory problems. Div. Two of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.

Justice Victoria M. Chavez authored the unpublished opinion. It affirms a judgment that was entered after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Pfahler granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant SC Medical, Inc., doing business as AFC Urgent Care of Valencia (“AFC”) in an action brought by Peter Yaya.

The plaintiff contended his deviated septum constitutes a disability and that AFC violated his civil liberties, as well as the Patients’ Bill of Rights Violations and intentionally caused him emotional distress.

Federal Immunity Statute

Chavez said the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act provides immunity to ADC. That act springs into effect if the secretary of health and human services declares that “a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency” and publishes notice of that in the Federal Register.

Immunity is then afforded as to “any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”

The secretary on March 17, 2020, declared a health emergency to be presented by COVID-19. It was on Dec. 21, 2021, when the declaration was still in effect, that Yaya sought treatment at AFC.

The jurist declared that “AFC’s face mask policy constituted the use of a covered countermeasure under the PREP Act.”

Chavez said that under the PREP Act, the only exception to the immunity is for “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct” and that a lawsuit alleging willful misconduct “shall be filed and maintained only in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”

Mask Mandate Exemption

Yaya argued that there is an exemption from the mask mandate for persons with a disability, pointing to guidelines promulgated by the California and Los Angeles County health departments. Chavez responded:

“Appellant cites no authority suggesting that AFC, a private entity, was required to follow the referenced publications. To the extent appellant attempts to allege willful conduct falling outside the PREP Act, an action in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia is his exclusive remedy.”

Rejecting Yayas contention that the PREP Act was not intended to foreclose a civil rights suit, she said:

“The statute provides no exception for civil rights violations, and appellant provides no binding legal authority suggesting such an exception exists.”

The case is Yaya v. SC Medical, B330912.