Regional Care Hospital fired Marie Gillispie because she was outspoken in telling hospital management that it was required to report an incident of patient dumping and had violated EMTALA by failing to do so.  At least that’s what Marie said in her federal lawsuit against the hospital for violating EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision.

EMTALA does have an anti-retaliation provision to protect employees.  So when the hospital moves for summary judgment, Marie should prevail, right?  Wrong, according to the federal court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Marie loses because EMTALA protects employees only from retaliation for reporting violations.  42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(i).  Unlike fair employment statutes, it doesn’t protect employees from retaliation for opposing violations.  E.g., 29 U.S.C. §623(d).

Marie didn’t meet the reporting requirement because she didn’t give any information or notification of the alleged violation to a governmental or regulatory agency.  According to her complaint, she opposed the violation, but that didn’t meet the reporting requirement.  So the court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is Gillispie v. Regional Care Hospital, No. 13-1534 (W.D.Pa., Nov. 14, 2016).