Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Medical Malpractice Claim or EMTALA Violation?
When a patient enters a hospital emergency room, there is always the possibility that he will be unsatisfied with the care he receives, justifiably or not. The patient might then bring a state-law medical malpractice action, but he might also seek to recover damages for violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd.
EMTALA was enacted to prevent the practice of “patient dumping,” where an emergency medical facility refuses to treat a patient, generally because he is unlikely to be able to pay for services rendered. It provides that when a patient presents at a covered hospital with an emergent condition (as defined by ' 1395dd(e)(1)), the facility must adequately screen him to evaluate his condition (' 1395dd(a)) and transfer him to a more appropriate place for treatment or discharge him only after properly stabilizing his condition
(' 1395dd(b)).
An EMTALA cause of action will not succeed if the gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is simply that the diagnosis or treatment rendered were substandard ' such complaints must be brought as medical malpractice actions. There must be proof of something more, and a failure to screen adequately is one such thing. But what constitutes an “adequate” screening, and how can a plaintiff show that the screening he or she received fell short?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?