COVID Justice Minnesota

Attorney Andy Barnhart from COVID Justice MN discusses the details of a recent Minnesota Appeals Court decision in the case of Roos v. HealthPartners, Inc.

James Roguski

May 13, 2025

124

Please watch the interview with Andy Barnhart:

https://rumble.com/v6tbyxj-an-interview-about-the-prep-act-with-andy-barnhart.html

The details of this case may have far-reaching implications.

The court case of Roos v. HealthPartners, Inc., primarily centers around the death of Kyle Roos that was allegedly caused by the failure to properly treat pneumonia.

QUICK SUMMARY:

The late Kyle Roos sought treatment for what he believed to be bacterial pneumonia.

Instead of treating the patient appropriately and in a timely manner, the health care providers at HealthPartners, Inc. instead treated him with remdesivir, a COVID-19 covered countermeasure.

According to medical records: The health care providers at HealthPartners, Inc. FAILED to test the late Kyle Roos for COVID-19.

According to the MN Court of Appeals: “When a plaintiff alleges a medical-negligence claim based upon a misdiagnosis, a defendant covered under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d (2018) (PREP Act), is not entitled to immunity because they used a treatment that is a covered countermeasure to treat the misdiagnosed medical condition.”

Appellant Jaclyn Roos challenges the district court's decision to dismiss her amended complaint on the ground that respondents HealthPartners, Inc., and Regions Hospital are immune from suit under the PREP Act.
The following facts are derived from Roos’s amended complaint.
On November 18, 2020, Roos’s husband (decedent) was admitted to Regions Hospital “with shortness of breath, fever, weakness, and fatigue.” Decedent had community-acquired pneumonia when admitted. “Known causes of community-acquired pneumonia are bacterial, viral, fungi or Covid-19, and are typically ruled out in that order.” Decedent, a licensed pharmacist, “immediately and repeatedly” told hospital staff “that he believed he had bacterial pneumonia.” Roos also “repeatedly reminded [hospital staff] that [d]ecedent believed he had bacterial pneumonia” and Roos “repeatedly asked [hospital staff] what they were doing to test for and treat it.”
Without any testing, hospital staff diagnosed decedent with COVID-19 and viral COVID pneumonia. They administered antiviral medications and anti-inflammatory immunosuppressants to treat those conditions. Hospital staff also administered “financially incentivized” COVID-19 treatments.
On November 23, 2020, decedent’s sixth day in the hospital, hospital staff began treating decedent with antibiotics to combat bacterial pneumonia. After 28 hours, hospital staff stopped giving decedent antibiotics, but they resumed antibiotic treatment 33 hours later. The medical records attached to the complaint indicate that these treatments were administered simultaneously with the COVID-19 and viral COVID pneumonia treatments.
On November 27, 2020, hospital staff tested decedent for bacterial pneumonia, and he tested positive. On December 2, 2020, decedent experienced a cardiac arrest and was transferred to another hospital. Decedent received treatment at the second hospital until his death on December 23, 2020.
The amended complaint alleged one cause of action against respondents: “survival action and wrongful death medical negligence.” The amended complaint asserted that because respondents failed to treat decedent’s bacterial pneumonia upon his admission and failed to treat it properly throughout his time at the facility, decedent’s “bacterial infection . . . spread throughout his body and caused his death.”
Roos’s primary allegation is misdiagnosis—respondents failed to test and treat decedent for the condition that led to his death (bacterial pneumonia).
As indicated above, we conclude that the thrust of Roos’s amended complaint is misdiagnosis—that respondents failed to test and properly treat decedent for bacterial pneumonia and those failures caused his death.
DECISION
Because Roos alleged a medical-negligence claim [failure to treat bacterial pneumonia] for which respondents are not immune from suit under the PREP Act when all reasonable inferences are drawn in Roos’s favor, we conclude the district court erred when it granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the amended complaint and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2025/OPa241339-050525.pdf

COVID Justice MN exists to raise charitable contributions and to use them to fund the advancement of legal action that it and/or others may take on behalf of those injured or killed in Minnesota by pandemic protocols which violate the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights and generate profits for the wrongdoers.

https://COVIDJusticeMN.com/join-the-fight/

https://COVIDJusticeMN.com/donate/