In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, Peter N. Yaya went to an urgent care center in Valencia, California, seeking treatment for his deviated septum, a condition that occurs when the cartilage and bone that separate the nasal cavity are not centered. As a result, breathing problems, congestion and headaches can occur. The receptionist in the center asked him to wear a mask, but he refused, citing his medical problem. He was asked to leave and to fill out some additional paperwork. He complied.

A short while later, the receptionist called Yaya’s cell phone and told him that he was required to wear a mask if he wanted to come back inside. He disconnected the call and reentered anyway. He then asked to speak to the manager, who informed him that the company had a policy that requires all patients to wear face masks. The plaintiff told her that she was in violation of the California Civil Code “and several other state and federal laws.” She reiterated the facility's policy, and he asked her to return his paperwork. He then left the urgent care center.

Three months later, in November 2022, Yaya filed a complaint against defendant AMC Urgent Care of Valencia (AFC). He alleged that AMC intentionally inflicted emotional distress and violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51. He also alleged that AMC committed slander in violation of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, part of the California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 7527, (a)(4). The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination by businesses for any disability. The Patients’ Bill of Rights states that patients have the right “to consent to or refuse any treatment or procedure…”

The following March, AMC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that it was immune from liability because of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). The 11th amendment to this Act, enacted due to COVID in 2023, gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the right to issue a declaration that provides immunity from liability for “claims of loss arising out of…the administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions…” The defendant also argued that it was entitled to judgment because Yaya failed to “plead facts sufficient to support any of his causes of action.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Pfahler granted AMC’s motion on April 11 because AMC was a “covered person” under the HHS Secretary’s declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a public health emergency. Pfahler also said that Yaya’s claims “lacked merit.” Yaya appealed in June.

In an unpublished opinion on September 11, a unanimous three-judge panel of Division Two of California’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Pfahler’s ruling. The opinion was authored by Justice Victoria M Chavez, with concurrences by Presiding Justice Elwood Lui and Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst.

Chavez began the opinion by explaining that the PREP Act does, in fact, offer covered persons immunity. It was enacted, she wrote, “to encourage during times of crisis the ‘development and deployment of medical countermeasures” (such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines) by limiting legal liability relating to their administration.’”

Yaya did not dispute that AFC was covered under the PREP Act. But he still claimed “loss” due to his emotional distress and “continued physical discomfort,” which he claimed were included in the PREP Act’s definition of loss. Chavez was not persuaded because, “The statute provides no exception for civil rights violations, and appellant provides no binding legal authority suggesting such an exception exists.”

She further explained that under the PREP Act, immunity is given for any claim for a loss, including “a causal relationship with…countermeasures (such as) AFC’s face mask policy.” She said the HHS Secretary’s declaration includes the “physical provision of a countermeasure.” And AFC’s mask policy was clearly part of the “operation and management of its facility. Thus, there is a causal relationship, and “AFC is immune from appellant’s claims under the PREP Act.”

Chavez next turned to Yaya’s claims regarding AFC’s refusal to recognize his deviated septum as a physical disability, according to the California Department of Public Health’s publication entitled “Guidance for Use of Face Coverings,” and the Los Angeles County Public Health’s guidance under its “Mask Wearing Rules and Recommendations.” However, the opinion said that Yaya failed to cite any authority suggesting that AFC, which is a private entity, “was required to follow the referenced publications.”

He said that Yaya could however “allege willful conduct falling outside the PREP Act” in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which is his “exclusive remedy under (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(4), (e)(1)(5), a section that details procedures under public health emergencies.