On July 27, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed a claim that York Hospital, a Maine Hospital with a dedicated emergency room, violated EMTALA after a patient suffered a stroke and was admitted to and subsequently transferred from York Hospital. Defendant moved to dismiss the patient's one-count complaint arguing that the patient had failed to sufficiently state a claim under EMTALA. The court agreed and, in granting the hospital's motion, noted the court was not ruling on whether the treatment amounted to medical malpractice, only that the allegation of an improper hospital transfer did not qualify as an EMTALA violation.
The patient's complaint alleged that York Hospital’s treatment violated EMTALA for: i) failure to provide appropriate medical screening; ii) failure to stabilize; iii) failure to admit within a reasonable time; and iv) failure to transfer to a stroke center in a timely manner. The hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that EMTALA only permits a cause of action founded upon failure to provide appropriate screening and transferring without first stabilizing a patient's condition. The court noted that the patient, in her response, did not address the last two claims.
With respect to the first allegation, the court looked at EMTALA’s requirement to “stabilize the [patient’s] medical condition” or to “transfer [the patient] to another medical facility.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b)(1). In reviewing the regulations on EMTALA’s stabilization requirement, the court found that “[i]f the hospital admits the individual as an inpatient for further treatment, the hospital’s obligation under this section ends.” 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i). After some discussion of CMS’s interpretation of the regulations regarding EMTALA’s stabilization requirement, the court found that the “stabilization obligation is satisfied and ends upon patient admission so far as a federal remedy is concerned.” Thus, because the patient in her complaint stated that York Hospital admitted her, the court concluded that York Hospital had no further EMTALA stabilization obligation.
Next, the court analyzed EMTALA’s requirement to provide appropriate medical screening to determine whether a medical condition exists. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a). Citing to First Circuit case law that “[t]he essence of this requirement is that there be some screening procedure, and that it be administered even-handedly,” the court found that the patient did not assert that “York Hospital refused to follow regular screening procedures or that it had no screening procedures” or that “York Hospital engaged in disparate screening or that it refused to screen her at all.” In fact, the patient noted that York Hospital did initiate screening, but argued the screening was not “full and appropriate.” The court stated that claim may implicate Maine medical malpractice laws, but did not state a federal EMTALA claim for refusing to screen or disparate screening.
The case is Walley v. York Hosp., No. 2:18-CV-126-DBH, 2018 WL 3614967 (D. Me. July 27, 2018). The court’s order is available here.
