;)
October 9th, 2025
In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services.
On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual.
Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later.
Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging:
Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE).
Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure.
OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread.
In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e.
Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity:
Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections.
Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act.
Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA.
Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim.
The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically:
It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.”
The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.”
Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use.
Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one.
Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity.
The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website.
To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.
