|
|
|
Leading COBRA/EMTALA Court Decisions
Burditt v. HHS, 934 F.2d 1362 (C.A. 5, 1991)This case upholds fine against an on-call physician for transferring a patient that was within the capabilities of the hospital to treat.
Smith v. Richmond Memorial Hospital, 243 Va. 445, 416 S.E.2nd 689 (1992). This case holds that COBRA/EMTALA applies to patients transferred following admission.
Jane M. Roberts, Guardian for Wanda Y. Johnson, Petitioner
v.
Galen of Virginia, Inc., formerly dba Humana Hospital -- University of Louisville, dba University of Louisville Hospital -- On January 13, 1999, just weeks after hearing argument on the Supreme Court's first EMTALA case, the high court issued a ruling striking down a 6th Circuit rule that patients had to prove an improper motive for EMTALA violations in order to sue. More importantly, the court allowed suit to proceed based on a transfer of an allegedly unstable patient to a nursing home after weeks of hospitalization, further supporting the argument that EMTALA applies to all in-house patient stability issues.
First Circuit case rules that COBRA applies house-wide Full text of opinion --12 pages-- best viewed by printing out.
HHS vs. St. Anthony Hospital Hospital trial results in fine for refusal of transfer by on-call physician in the NBC Dateline case involving multiple hospitals refusing a vascular surgery patient, who ultimately died. Citations were issued to multiple hospitals, and all came into compliance. Civil lawsuits against the hospitals were settled on an undisclosed basis. (Best viewed by printing out -- 37 pages)
Millard opinion -- On-call DutyMissouri appeals court reinstates malpractice suit against on-call surgeon. An on-call surgeon who left town without telling the hospital must stand trial in a malpractice case brought by a patient who claims injuries because the general surgeon was not available. The court ruled that when a physician is on-call, and obligated to respond, there is a physician-patient relationship. The Missouri appellate court overturned a trial court ruling that there was no relationship upon which to bring suit. Although brought under Missouri law, the arguments are equally applicable to on-call obligations created by EMTALA
Ambulance diversion results in potential EMTALA liability -- The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case of a hospital ED physician that directed an ambulance to another hospital when his own hospital was not on diversion may create EMTALA liability.
This site is under construction. Additional cases will be added periodically. Thank you for being patient.
|
: |
|
