EMTALA Does Not Protect Against Misdiagnosis
EMTALA Does Not Protect Against Misdiagnosis
On October 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the prior federal district trial court decision rejecting an inadequate screening claim brought by Vickie Bryant against John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital and Michael Arthur Crowley, M.D. (Bryant v. John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital, 11th Cir., No. 06-13168, 10/27/06).
Bryant initially sued defendants for violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395 dd. This complaint also alleged that the hospital and Crowley, the ED physician who attended to her, were liable to her under Georgia law for medical malpractice. The district trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the EMTALA claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claim. Bryant appealed the grant of summary judgment on the EMTALA claim.
Although the appeals court decision is unpublished, this case appears to begin with plaintiff Bryant presenting at the John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital ED following a September 2004 motor vehicle accident. Notwithstanding the substantive attention Bryant received from ED staff, her ruptured spleen was not detected. Bryant alleged that the ED physician who treated her failed to examine her abdomen. Although the court was mindful that plaintiff and defendants disagreed as to whether the doctor "physically touched" Bryant's abdomen during the screening, the district court determined that this particular factual dispute was not relevant and significant.
The court wrote that the "specific steps undertaken by a physician during the medical screening are not the focus of the EMTALA's safeguards . . . EMTALA does not require hospitals to provide an examination whereby every conceivably relevant examination or test is completed." Rather, EMTALA requires hospitals to provide a medical screening similar to the one which the hospital would provide any other patient. Thus, under EMTALA the plaintiff is obliged to furnish evidence proving how the screening received deviated from the standard screening provided at the respective hospital ED.
The trial court iterated that "EMTALA protects against inadequate screening, not misdiagnosis" such as in the failure to detect an injury. Absent the necessary facts to meet the legal requirements to file a legitimate lawsuit, the trial court found that Bryant failed to allege an actionable complaint under EMTALA. The trial court also ruled that once the claim was dismissed, it was within the court's discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state medical malpractice law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The federal appeals court determined that the trial court, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, "appropriately analyzed the EMTALA statute and the record evidence and properly determined that no dispute existed as to an issue of material fact."
District Court Rules Claims Are Medical Malpractice Not EMTALA
On October 2, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a lawsuit claiming that a hospital violated EMTALA (Alvarez v. Vera, D.P.R., No. 3:04-cv-01579-HL, 10/02/06). The plaintiff was Emily Martínez Alvarez ("Martínez") and her husband Erasmo Quiñones González. The defendants were Dr. Ariel Bermúdez Vera, Dr. Miguel Meneses, Hospital Hermanos Meléndez, JDG Medical Corporation, P.S.C., Sindicato de Aseguradores para la Suscripción Conjunta de Seguros de Responsabilidad Profesional Medico-Hospitalaria (SIMED), and the American International Insurance Company of Puerto Rico (AIICO).
Introduction
On October 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the prior federal district trial court decision rejecting an inadequate screening claim brought by Vickie Bryant against John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital and Michael Arthur Crowley, M.D. (Bryant v. John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital, 11th Cir., No. 06-13168, 10/27/06).
Bryant initially sued defendants for violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395 dd. This complaint also alleged that the hospital and Crowley, the ED physician who attended to her, were liable to her under Georgia law for medical malpractice. The district trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the EMTALA claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claim. Bryant appealed the grant of summary judgment on the EMTALA claim.
Although the appeals court decision is unpublished, this case appears to begin with plaintiff Bryant presenting at the John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital ED following a September 2004 motor vehicle accident. Notwithstanding the substantive attention Bryant received from ED staff, her ruptured spleen was not detected. Bryant alleged that the ED physician who treated her failed to examine her abdomen. Although the court was mindful that plaintiff and defendants disagreed as to whether the doctor "physically touched" Bryant's abdomen during the screening, the district court determined that this particular factual dispute was not relevant and significant.
The court wrote that the "specific steps undertaken by a physician during the medical screening are not the focus of the EMTALA's safeguards . . . EMTALA does not require hospitals to provide an examination whereby every conceivably relevant examination or test is completed." Rather, EMTALA requires hospitals to provide a medical screening similar to the one which the hospital would provide any other patient. Thus, under EMTALA the plaintiff is obliged to furnish evidence proving how the screening received deviated from the standard screening provided at the respective hospital ED.
The trial court iterated that "EMTALA protects against inadequate screening, not misdiagnosis" such as in the failure to detect an injury. Absent the necessary facts to meet the legal requirements to file a legitimate lawsuit, the trial court found that Bryant failed to allege an actionable complaint under EMTALA. The trial court also ruled that once the claim was dismissed, it was within the court's discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state medical malpractice law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The federal appeals court determined that the trial court, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, "appropriately analyzed the EMTALA statute and the record evidence and properly determined that no dispute existed as to an issue of material fact."
District Court Rules Claims Are Medical Malpractice Not EMTALA
On October 2, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a lawsuit claiming that a hospital violated EMTALA (Alvarez v. Vera, D.P.R., No. 3:04-cv-01579-HL, 10/02/06). The plaintiff was Emily Martínez Alvarez ("Martínez") and her husband Erasmo Quiñones González. The defendants were Dr. Ariel Bermúdez Vera, Dr. Miguel Meneses, Hospital Hermanos Meléndez, JDG Medical Corporation, P.S.C., Sindicato de Aseguradores para la Suscripción Conjunta de Seguros de Responsabilidad Profesional Medico-Hospitalaria (SIMED), and the American International Insurance Company of Puerto Rico (AIICO).
Source...