Covid-19 Health-Care Shield Law Bars Mississippi Medical Suit

A Mississippi man can’t revive a medical malpractice suit saying his providers failed to diagnose a neurological disorder he developed after recovering from Covid-19, the state’s top court said.

A 2020 Mississippi law that immunizes health-care providers from liability for services performed during the Covid-19 public health emergency barred James Secrist’s case against Rush Medical Foundation and others, the Mississippi Supreme Court said Thursday.

The statute’s plain language precluded Secrist from recovering damages for the alleged malpractice, Justice T. Kenneth Griffis wrote for the court.

Many states and the federal government adopted measures shielding providers from liability during the pandemic. Although it’s long over, litigation involving the scope of those pandemic-era provisions continues.

Mississippi’s law shielded any provider from suit for any injury or death “directly or indirectly sustained because of” their actions or omissions while providing services “related” to the Covid-19 emergency.

It expressly applied to “any health care services performed during” the pandemic, including but not limited to the screening, diagnosis, or treatment of any Covid-19-related emergency or medical condition.

Secrist had just recovered from Covid-19 when he developed weakness in his legs and an inability to urinate in March 2021. Rush and others weren’t able to diagnose the condition, which was identified as transverse myelitis in June.

The patient argued on appeal that the immunity statute didn’t apply in his case because it was limited to the treatment of Covid-19 and related conditions.

The top court disagreed, saying the law clearly applied to any health-care services related to Covid-19 performed during the state of emergency.

Secrist’s condition was admittedly caused by Covid-19, and thus “related to” the virus, the court said.

The court rejected Secrist’s argument that the shield law didn’t apply because his suit didn’t involve negligence during his direct treatment for Covid-19 or another respiratory illness.

Chief Justice Michael K. Randolph and Justices David M. Ishee and David P. Sullivan joined the opinion.

Justice Josiah D. Coleman concurred in a separate opinion where he commented on the law’s legislative history.

Justice Leslie D. King concurred in the result only, without opinion, and Justice Jenifer B. Branning didn’t participate.

Merkel & Cocke PA represents Secrist. Heidelberg Patterson Welch Wright PLLC represents Rush. Mitchell McNutt represents defendant Cardiovascular Institute of the South.

The case is Secrist v. Rush Med. Found., Miss., No. 2024-CA-01034-SCT, 3/26/26.