Verdicts

Nostrame was not satisfied with that award, and sought additional monies from Mazie Slater, claiming the firm tortuously interfered with his contract with Santiago. Although the trial court refused to dismiss the case and ordered discovery to proceed, an appeals court reversed. Nostrame sought review from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal, noting that the mere fact that the client had jumped ship did not indicate that Mazie Slater had done anything actionable, such as induce the defection through fraud, defamation or some other tortious means. Nostrame's request to conduct discovery must fail, because allowing him to go on a “fishing expedition,” without some strong basis for suspecting that actionable evidence would be found, would chill the rights of claimants to retain the services of attorneys of their own choosing.

No Valid EMTALA Claim Possible if Transfer or Discharge Did Not Take Place

Because a patient was never discharged or transferred from the defendant hospital to another medical facility, there could be no violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act's ((EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) requirement that the hospital stabilize the patient before such transfer or discharge. Maldonado-Rodriquez v. St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, 2013 Dist. Lexis 58053 (D. P.R. 4/22/13).

Plaintiffs' deceased was injured in Ponce, Puerto Rico, while riding on an All Terrain Vehicle. He was taken by ambulance to St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, where he was seen by two emergency room doctors. One of them determined that the patient should be transferred to another medical facility. However, before that transfer could occur, the patient died. Plaintiffs alleged that the hospital lacked the necessary personnel and equipment to adequately treat the deceased's injuries and, therefore, should have transferred him to a facility that could have handled those injuries.

There was no dispute concerning the fact that the hospital was subject to the provisions of EMTALA, but the hospital contended that it complied with its obligations under the statute to screen, treat, attempt to stabilize, and transfer the patient to a trauma center in accordance with the statute. The court agreed with the hospital, observing that, in order to establish a violation of EMTALA, a patient who presents at the hospital for treatment must either be denied an appropriate screening to determine if he has an emergency condition or he must be discharged (by being turned away, being discharged or being improvidently transferred to another medical facility) without first having had his condition stabilized. In this case, although the plaintiffs were not happy with the results of the patient's screening in the hospital's emergency department, he did receive one, and he was found to have an emergent condition. And although the doctors determined that the patient should be moved to a better-equipped medical facility, that transfer never took place. Thus, there could be no EMTALA violation for discharging him in an inappropriate manner. Finally, the court declined to find a cause of action under EMTALA for the hospital's failure to timely transfer the patient, because EMTALA does not establish a right to transfer where appropriate.' A failure to transfer a patient that results in harm to him must be addressed as a state-law claim for medical malpractice.

Because it had dismissed all the federal claims, the court decided also to dismiss the remaining state-law claims.

'

Discovery Denied Where Complaint Against Rival Firm Fails to Plead
Misconduct

An attorney's suit for tortious interference with contract against the attorney firm that took over his medical malpractice client's case was properly dismissed for failure to plead specific, actionable tortious conduct. Nostrame v. Santiago, A-40 September Term 2011; Supreme Court; opinion by Hoens, J.; decided March 11, 2013. On certification to the Appellate Division, 420 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2011).

In the underlying medical malpractice case, plaintiff Natividad Santiago underwent surgery that injured her eye. She retained the services of attorney Frank Nostrame to pursue a medical malpractice claim. Nostrame handled the case for approximately six months, during which time he obtained the claimant's medical records, conducted research and consulted with experts. On May 23, 2007, he filed the client's complaint. By letter dated May 31, 2007, the client fired Nostrame and informed him that she had switched to an attorney at Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman. Nostrame asserted a lien against the proceeds of the medical malpractice case. The underlying claim eventually settled for $1.2 million and the court, citing Nostrame's right to recover a fee in quantum meruit, awarded Nostrame $11,623 for the services he had performed.

Nostrame was not satisfied with that award, and sought additional monies from Mazie Slater, claiming the firm tortuously interfered with his contract with Santiago. Although the trial court refused to dismiss the case and ordered discovery to proceed, an appeals court reversed. Nostrame sought review from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal, noting that the mere fact that the client had jumped ship did not indicate that Mazie Slater had done anything actionable, such as induce the defection through fraud, defamation or some other tortious means. Nostrame's request to conduct discovery must fail, because allowing him to go on a “fishing expedition,” without some strong basis for suspecting that actionable evidence would be found, would chill the rights of claimants to retain the services of attorneys of their own choosing.

No Valid EMTALA Claim Possible if Transfer or Discharge Did Not Take Place

Because a patient was never discharged or transferred from the defendant hospital to another medical facility, there could be no violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act's ((EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) requirement that the hospital stabilize the patient before such transfer or discharge. Maldonado-Rodriquez v. St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, 2013 Dist. Lexis 58053 (D. P.R. 4/22/13).

Plaintiffs' deceased was injured in Ponce, Puerto Rico, while riding on an All Terrain Vehicle. He was taken by ambulance to St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, where he was seen by two emergency room doctors. One of them determined that the patient should be transferred to another medical facility. However, before that transfer could occur, the patient died. Plaintiffs alleged that the hospital lacked the necessary personnel and equipment to adequately treat the deceased's injuries and, therefore, should have transferred him to a facility that could have handled those injuries.

There was no dispute concerning the fact that the hospital was subject to the provisions of EMTALA, but the hospital contended that it complied with its obligations under the statute to screen, treat, attempt to stabilize, and transfer the patient to a trauma center in accordance with the statute. The court agreed with the hospital, observing that, in order to establish a violation of EMTALA, a patient who presents at the hospital for treatment must either be denied an appropriate screening to determine if he has an emergency condition or he must be discharged (by being turned away, being discharged or being improvidently transferred to another medical facility) without first having had his condition stabilized. In this case, although the plaintiffs were not happy with the results of the patient's screening in the hospital's emergency department, he did receive one, and he was found to have an emergent condition. And although the doctors determined that the patient should be moved to a better-equipped medical facility, that transfer never took place. Thus, there could be no EMTALA violation for discharging him in an inappropriate manner. Finally, the court declined to find a cause of action under EMTALA for the hospital's failure to timely transfer the patient, because EMTALA does not establish a right to transfer where appropriate.' A failure to transfer a patient that results in harm to him must be addressed as a state-law claim for medical malpractice.

Because it had dismissed all the federal claims, the court decided also to dismiss the remaining state-law claims.

'