COVID-19 Immunity for Nursing Homes: Why California Seniors Deserve Better

by Michael Hackard

Publication Date November 4, 2026 in Coronavirus Liability

When Immunity Becomes Injustice

I am Michael Hackard, founder of Hackard Law. Over five decades of practice, I have fought for heirs, beneficiaries, and elder abuse victims across Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles. I have written four published books on inheritance protection, including The Wolf at the Door: Undue Influence and Elder Financial Abuse, and our firm has produced more than 1,000 educational videos that have reached over seven million viewers. I share that background not to impress, but to explain why I feel compelled to speak out when powerful institutions try to strip vulnerable people of their legal rights.

Right now, California’s nursing home and long-term care industry is pressing Governor Newsom for blanket immunity from civil liability tied to COVID-19. The facts driving this request are genuinely grim  –  thousands of deaths, thousands of infections, facilities under enormous pressure. But bad facts do not justify bad law. When we strip seniors of their right to seek justice, we strip them of their dignity.

Hackard Law provides contingency fee representation for qualified cases  –  no upfront costs to you. If you have concerns about a loved one in a long-term care facility, call us at (916) 313-3030.

Quick Summary

The long-term care sector in California has requested the governor for wide-ranging immunity from civil and criminal liability over COVID-19 treatment, a step that would leave seniors and their families with almost little legal recourse.

• More than 10,000 U.S. coronavirus-linked deaths occurred in long-term care facilities at the time of this writing
• Over 30% of Los Angeles County COVID-19 deaths were residents of long-term care facilities
• The immunity request covers nearly all civil liability, with only a narrow exception for willful misconduct
• 80% of California nursing homes are owned by for-profit corporate chains
• Senior advocates, newspaper editorials, and families are speaking out against the proposal

The Scale of the Crisis in Long-Term Care

America has millions of people who live or work in long-term care settings. Approximately 1.3 million reside in nursing homes, 800,000 in assisted living facilities, and roughly 3 million people work in skilled nursing or residential care. That is a vast population  –  and every one of them has a family.

In Los Angeles County alone, long-term care residents made up for than 30% of COVID-19 deaths. The California Department of Public Health recorded more than 3,000 infections among patients and workers at 258 facilities. These are not just abstract numbers. They are the mothers, fathers, grandparents and the care workers.

The CDC issued detailed guidance to long-term care facilities: keep COVID-19 from entering, identify infections early, prevent spread, use protective equipment properly, and manage illness effectively. The question families are now asking is whether facilities followed that guidance  –  and whether anyone will be held accountable if they did not.

What the Industry Is Asking For

The California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association, the California Association of Health Facilities, the California Assisted Living Association and others issued a combined plea to Governor Newsom. They want an executive order that would protect them from administrative penalties and civil or criminal liability for any harm, death or loss associated with treatment of COVID-19.

They propose one exception: willful misconduct. But even that carve-out is weakened. They also want to raise the standard of proof for willful misconduct claims from the ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard  –  more likely than not  –  to the much harder clear and convincing standard. In practice, this would make it nearly impossible for families to hold facilities accountable even for serious failures.

Those failings could include bringing known COVID-19 carriers into a facility, failing to identify infections early, neglecting CDC regulations or mishandling outbreaks once they started. Under the proposed immunity, all that would be forgiven.

Case Pattern: Inadequate Isolation Protocols

A family discovers that their elderly mother contracted COVID-19 shortly after a new resident was admitted to her wing without proper screening. The facility argues it was doing its best under difficult circumstances. Without the ability to pursue civil claims, the family has no meaningful path to answers or accountability  –  and the facility faces no incentive to improve its protocols.

Who Benefits  –  and Who Pays the Price

Eighty percent of California’s nursing homes are owned by for-profit corporate chains. These are not small community organizations running on goodwill. They are businesses, and like any business, they respond to financial incentives. Civil liability is one of the few mechanisms that pushes facilities to invest in better staffing, better equipment, and better protocols.

Remove that liability, and you remove a powerful reason to do better. Hackard Law has litigated cases involving Los Angeles estate litigation and elder financial abuse for decades, and the pattern is consistent: when accountability disappears, harm follows.

Seniors may be old, but they are not less deserving of equal justice. The blanket immunity proposal treats their lives as an acceptable cost of doing business during a crisis  –  and that is a standard California families should reject.

Case Pattern: Staffing Failures During an Outbreak

A nursing home reports a COVID-19 outbreak but continues to operate with reduced staffing, citing worker shortages. Residents go without timely care. Under a blanket immunity order, the families of those who died cannot pursue civil claims, even though the facility’s response fell well short of CDC guidance. The absence of accountability leaves the next outbreak just as likely.

The Voices Speaking Out

There have been critics of the plan. Editorial boards of newspapers, elder advocacy organizations, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform and relatives of residents have all resisted. Their argument is simple: accountability isn’t cruelty. It’s how we defend the most vulnerable among us.

I wrote The Wolf at the Door because I have spent a career watching wealthy, powerful institutions try to extinguish the rights of people who cannot fight back alone. I also represented thousands of people injured by dangerous and often FDA-withdrawn drugs  –  and I watched corporations spend enormous resources trying to smother those claims. The playbook is the same. Only the crisis changes.

For families navigating these situations, understanding your rights is the first step. Resources like the top 10 most common probate, trust, and estate battles can help frame what legal options may be available when institutions fail the people in their care.

Why This Matters Beyond the Pandemic

The legal principle here is much bigger than COVID-19. If the government can provide blanket civil immunity for an entire industry during a declared emergency, it sets a precedent that can be expanded.” Future catastrophes – natural disasters, financial failures, other public health emergencies – could become chances to shelter powerful organizations from the consequences of their decisions.

For years, I stood behind families who were told that their losses didn’t matter, that the institution was too vital, too strained, too overburdened to be held accountable. The financial cost goes rises each day and the breach of a family’s trust – trust in the system, in the institutions that were supposed to safeguard their loved ones – is sometimes too deep to be healed by any verdict. Discovery and accountability and the pursuit of justice are not merely legal tactics. These are the measures that inform every senior in a long-term care institution that your life matters, and the law will protect it.

Key Definitions

• Blanket immunity: A broad legal protection that shields an entity from civil, criminal, or administrative liability across a wide range of conduct, with few or no exceptions.
• Preponderance of the evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning it is more likely than not that the claim is true.
• Clear and convincing evidence: A higher standard of proof requiring that the claim be substantially more likely true than not  –  harder to meet than preponderance.
• Willful misconduct: Intentional wrongdoing or reckless disregard for the safety of others, distinguished from ordinary negligence.
• Long-term care facility: Any residential setting providing ongoing health or personal care services, including nursing homes, assisted living, and skilled nursing facilities.
• Civil liability: Legal responsibility that can result in a court ordering payment of damages to an injured party.
• Executive order: A directive issued by a governor or president that carries the force of law without requiring legislative approval.
• For-profit corporate chain: A business entity that owns and operates multiple care facilities with the primary goal of generating profit for shareholders.

What to Do Next

• Look for any written communications from the facility about COVID-19 protocols and how they were applied to your loved one.
• Get copies of any incident reports, medical records, or infection logs related to your family member’s care.
• Try to avoid signing any releases or waivers presented by the facility without first consulting an attorney.
• Look for patterns  –  if multiple residents were affected in similar ways, that information may be relevant to a broader claim.
• Document conversations with facility staff, including dates, names, and what was said.
• Try to avoid waiting too long, as statutes of limitations apply to elder abuse and negligence claims in California.
• Review California’s elder abuse statutes, which can provide enhanced remedies, including attorney fee awards in qualifying cases.
• Get a sense of your legal options by reviewing what contingency fee representation looks like for cases involving elder harm.
• Reach out to Hackard Law’s Los Angeles estate litigation team if you believe financial or physical harm occurred in a care setting.
• Call Hackard Law at (916) 313-3030, or visit our contact page to tell us about your situation.

CALL THE SAGE | When Experience Matters, Families Listen

🏛️ We practice California trust & estate & elder financial abuse litigation

⚖️ We represent heirs, beneficiaries, and elder abuse victims

🎥 1,000+ educational videos | 7 million+ views | 6 published books

🎯 “After thousands of cases, I see the pattern others miss.”

CONTINGENCY REPRESENTATION – No Win, No Fee

Throughout California: Sacramento | Los Angeles | Bay Area

📞 CALL THE SAGE: (916) 313-3030

Subscribe for weekly insights on:

• Elder financial abuse warning signs and prevention
• Trust and estate litigation strategies
• Inheritance protection for California families
• Family protection strategies

When your inheritance is under attack, Call The Sage.

Hackard Law | 10640 Mather Blvd, Mather CA 95655

Attorney Advertisement | Michael Hackard, State Bar #71067

RELATED VIDEOS

Who Can Bring A Wrongful Death Lawsuit? | CA Probate Code

 Explains who is legally eligible to file a wrongful death claim in California.

Who Can Sue For Damages In A California Wrongful Death Lawsuit? | CA Probate Code

 Walks through California law on who may seek damages after a loved one’s death.

Placer County Senior Exploitation | Homes and Estates & Trusts

 Covers how seniors in Placer County can fall victim to exploitation involving their homes and estates.

Victor or Victim | Attitude Counts in Estate Litigation

 Discusses the mindset families need when pursuing justice through estate litigation.