Delibertis v. Pottstown Hosp. Co. LLC — Jan. 2016 (Summary)

EMTALA

Delibertis v. Pottstown Hosp. Co. LLC
Civil Action No. 14-6971 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2016)

The District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part a hospital’s motion for summary judgment on a patient’s EMTALA claim. The patient was brought to the emergency room of the hospital by his wife who claimed the patient was suffering from symptoms associated with a stroke. A physician administered several tests that indicated the patient did not suffer from a stroke, but wrote in the patient’s record that the patient’s condition presented a “certified medical emergency.” The physician who administered the examination consulted with another physician, and the patient was released with instruction to follow up with the consulting physician. Three hours later, the patient returned to the ER and was found to have suffered a stroke by a different physician.

The district court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the patient’s “failure to screen” EMTALA claim, holding that a genuine issue of material fact remained because the hospital only presented evidence that the physician complied with his own procedures for possible stroke patients, and did not present any evidence of the hospital’s internal policies and procedures for stroke patients. However, the district court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the patient’s “failure to stabilize claim.” The court held that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the patient was stabilized at the time of his departure because the examining physician’s tests revealed the patient had not suffered from a stroke, the patient exhibited normal speech and blood pressure, and notations in the medical record indicated the patient was feeling “well” and “verbaliz[ed] an understanding and willingness” to comply with the discharge plans.

The district court also granted the consulting physician’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the patient’s medical negligence claim, holding that, because the patient’s expert report focused on the actions and alleged negligence of the examining physician and not the consulting physician, the patient had failed to establish a prima facie case of medical negligence.