(CN) - The Supreme Court agreed in an order list released Monday to decide whether a Louisiana law can shield health care providers from federal claims and declined to find that improper jury instructions led to a North Carolina man's life sentence.

In a unanimous statement, the justices called out the Louisiana Court of Appeals for issuing a faulty ruling that held a state statute barred a man's federal claims, granting his petition for review.

"That decision is incorrect," the justices wrote. "Defining the scope of liability under state law is the state's prerogative. But a state has no power to confer immunity from federal causes of action."

The state law at issue immunizes health care providers from civil liability during public health emergencies. The Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act was passed in 2003 to help facilitate the state's response to public health emergencies and limit liability, to prevent any hesitation in providing care.

When a man filed suit against Dynamic Physical Therapy in 2021, claiming he was wrongfully denied medical care for having HIV, his claims were barred as the Louisiana governor issued a health emergency for the Covid-19 pandemic.

However, the man argued federal rather than state laws were violated under the American with Disabilities Act because refusing to provide him aquatic physical therapy was discriminatory based on his HIV status.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals extended the state's Health Emergency Powers Act to preclude federal disability claims and held that during the Covid-19 emergency, health care providers only violated the statutes if they acted with "gross negligence or willful misconduct."

"This decision creates a paradox in which a plaintiff's federal claims may be dismissed based purely on the incident timing, even when such dismissal is not supported by federal law," the man who filed suit under John Doe wrote in his petition to the high court.

"Additionally, the Louisiana Court of Appeals decision shields a provider who discriminatorily denies care to a patient," he said.

Reasonable doubt?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a separate statement on Monday, concurring in the court's denial of a petition seeking to vacate a North Carolina man's murder conviction.

The petition was ultimately rejected for being "untimely," with counsel failing to provide any explanation for the delay in filing.

But the Barack Obama appointee wrote independently to address whether the lower court was wrong to decline giving a jury instruction requested by the petitioner, Antonio Davenport.

Davenport was sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty of murder in aid of racketeering.

To make its case, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Davenport committed murder under North Carolina state law. At trial, the proposed jury instructions at no point defined what it means to prove an element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

When Davenport asked the federal court to give a jury instruction defining reasonable doubt for the underlying murder charge, it demurred and stated that federal courts are "specifically prohibited from giving a definition of reasonable doubt."

As a result, the jury did not receive an instruction on what reasonable doubt means.

"The district court was mistaken," Sotomayor wrote. "Federal courts are not prohibited from defining reasonable doubt for the jury."

In this case, the Middle District Court of North Carolina should have recognized that it had discretion over whether to grant Davenport's request and define reasonable doubt for the jury, Sotomayor wrote.

However, she noted that in some cases, it may be wise not to define reasonable doubt, as it might confuse the jury by suggesting they should apply different reasonable-doubt standards to different elements.

"In view of the central importance of the reasonable-doubt standard to criminal procedure, balanced against the potential for confusion from a reasonable-doubt instruction, district courts should weigh the circumstances of each individual case to decide whether to provide a definition to the jury," Sotomayor wrote.

Source: Courthouse News Service