Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, 607 U.S. , S. Ct. __, 2025 WL 3506945 (Dec. 8, 2025, No. 25–180)

State laws immunizing healthcare providers from liability do not bar federal claims.

In a Louisiana case, Plaintiff brought federal discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as state-law claims, against Dynamic Physical Therapy, alleging that it unlawfully denied him needed aquatic physical therapy due to his HIV-positive status. Dynamic asserted immunity under Louisiana’s Health Emergency Powers Act (LHEPA), which shields healthcare providers from civil liability during declared public health emergencies, including the COVID-19 emergency in effect when plaintiff was denied care. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint based on LHEPA immunity and the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily reversed, holding that LHEPA cannot immunize healthcare providers from federal statutory liability. States are “bound” by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to “follow federal law” and have “no power to confer immunity from federal causes of action.”

The Court’s holding would apply equally to California immunity statutes, which cannot bar liability for violation of federal law. For example, Government Code section 8659, which is a part of the California Emergency Services Act (CESA), immunizes medical and veterinary providers from liability during a state of emergency when they act “at the express or implied request of any responsible state or local official or agency,” except for “willful act[s] or omission[s].” (Gov. Code, § 8659.) Under Dynamic, the CESA cannot bar liability for violating federal laws. Likewise, the California Tort Claims Act protects “public employee[s] acting within the scope of [their] employment” from liability “for injury resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness.” (Gov. Code, § 855.8.) Assertions of section 855.8 immunity against federal causes of action would be barred by Dynamic. For example, if a prisoner brings an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his prison doctor alleging deliberate indifference for failing to diagnose his mental illness, courts should reject the doctor’s assertion of immunity consistent with Dynamic’s ruling that state-law immunities do not trump federal claims.

The bulletin describing this appellate decision was originally prepared for the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys (CSHA) by H. Thomas Watson, Peder K. Batalden, and Lacey Estudillo at the appellate firm Horvitz & Levy LLP, and is republished with permission.

For more information regarding this bulletin, please contact H. Thomas Watson, Horvitz & Levy LLP, at 818-995-0800 or htwatson@horvitzlevy.com.

Know someone who would like to receive Health Law Committee e-bulletins? Please visit the California Lawyers Association website.

Interested in becoming an official member of the Health Law Committee? The application to join the CLA Business Law Section is available online here. Applicants must be Business Law Section members who have been admitted to the California Bar and practicing for at least five years.