Baney v. Fick – Feb. 2015 (Summary)

EMTALA

Baney v. Fick, No. 4:14-CV-2393 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015)

fulltextThe United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) claim brought against a hospital by a former patient and his wife and declined to exercise jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims. The patient underwent a scheduled elective cervical spine neurosurgical procedure at the hospital. During the procedure, the patient’s esophagus was allegedly perforated. According to the complaint, the patient suffered “devastating permanent injuries” because the hospital did not properly manage the perforation and did not transfer him immediately to a tertiary care facility where cardiothoracic surgeons were available to address the perforation.

The hospital filed a motion to dismiss the EMTALA claim, which the court granted. The court noted that EMTALA’s medical screening and stabilization requirements only apply to individuals seeking emergency treatment. Per the court’s opinion, “EMTALA’s requirements are triggered when an ‘individual comes to the emergency department’ and an individual only does so if that person is not already a ‘patient.’“ Here, the patient had a scheduled appointment and was already a patient of the hospital when the emergency condition presented during his procedure. Accordingly, EMTALA did not apply, the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims.