Verdicts

Hospital's Patient Transfer Did Not Violate EMTALA

A Pennsylvania hospital's motion to dismiss an EMTALA “stabilization claim” was granted after the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to show that he was suffering from an emergent condition, but alleged only that he should have been transferred to a second hospital sooner than he was actually transferred there. Baney v. Fick, PICS Case No. 15-0349 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015) Mannion, J. (16 pages).

The plaintiff patient was admitted to Mount Nittany Medical Center on July 19, 2012, where he underwent elective cervical spine surgery. During surgery his esophagus was accidentally cut, so he was not immediately transferred to Hershey Medical Center. Instead, he remained at Mount Nittany until July 26, when he was transferred to Hershey Medical Center. The plaintiff brought suit against Nittany Medical Center and several medical practitioners there under section 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), claiming that his life had been in peril but that the hospital failed to properly stabilize him or transfer him to another medical facility that would do so. The defendants moved to dismiss.

The court noted that, in order to properly plead a stabilization claim under EMTALA, a plaintiff must allege: 1) that he had an emergency medical condition; 2) that the hospital knew about the emergency medical condition; and yet 3) the hospital failed to stabilize the plaintiff prior to discharging him or transferring him to another medical facility. In this case, the plaintiff did not show that he suffered from an emergency condition, as he went to Mount Nittany for elective surgery. And even if the plaintiff had suffered an emergent condition while there, he was stabilized by the time he was transferred to Hershey Medical Center. “Plaintiffs,” wrote the district court, “are improperly relying on EMTALA to try and create a federal malpractice claim when, in actuality[,] these allegations can best be described as a garden variety medical malpractice cause of action.” Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion for dismissal.

Notice of Claim Is Timely

A man who attended post-operative appointments but did so less frequently than recommended was still, absent evidence to the contrary, receiving continuous care from his medical practitioners, such that the doctrine of continuous treatment applied to render his notice of claim timely. Sow v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 451061/2013 (Feb. 11).

The plaintiff underwent eye surgeries in 2007 and 2008. He attended regular postoperative appointments soon after these surgeries, but did so less frequently after a time. The plaintiff's final such visit was on June 6, 2012. In August 2012, less than three months later, he filed this malpractice suit against the hospital, among others. The plaintiff moved the court to declare his notice of claim timely.

The court noted that each time the plaintiff had visited the hospital, doctors there instructed him to schedule a follow-up visit, indicating that they expected to continue providing the plaintiff with care. The defendants offered no proof that the plaintiff thought that he was no longer receiving continuous care after Sept. 29, 2010; without such proof, the infrequency of the plaintiff's later visits, alone, did not show that continuous post-operative care had ended. Therefore, the court deemed the plaintiff's notice of claim timely.

'

Hospital's Patient Transfer Did Not Violate EMTALA

A Pennsylvania hospital's motion to dismiss an EMTALA “stabilization claim” was granted after the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to show that he was suffering from an emergent condition, but alleged only that he should have been transferred to a second hospital sooner than he was actually transferred there. Baney v. Fick, PICS Case No. 15-0349 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015) Mannion, J. (16 pages).

The plaintiff patient was admitted to Mount Nittany Medical Center on July 19, 2012, where he underwent elective cervical spine surgery. During surgery his esophagus was accidentally cut, so he was not immediately transferred to Hershey Medical Center. Instead, he remained at Mount Nittany until July 26, when he was transferred to Hershey Medical Center. The plaintiff brought suit against Nittany Medical Center and several medical practitioners there under section 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), claiming that his life had been in peril but that the hospital failed to properly stabilize him or transfer him to another medical facility that would do so. The defendants moved to dismiss.

The court noted that, in order to properly plead a stabilization claim under EMTALA, a plaintiff must allege: 1) that he had an emergency medical condition; 2) that the hospital knew about the emergency medical condition; and yet 3) the hospital failed to stabilize the plaintiff prior to discharging him or transferring him to another medical facility. In this case, the plaintiff did not show that he suffered from an emergency condition, as he went to Mount Nittany for elective surgery. And even if the plaintiff had suffered an emergent condition while there, he was stabilized by the time he was transferred to Hershey Medical Center. “Plaintiffs,” wrote the district court, “are improperly relying on EMTALA to try and create a federal malpractice claim when, in actuality[,] these allegations can best be described as a garden variety medical malpractice cause of action.” Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion for dismissal.

Notice of Claim Is Timely

A man who attended post-operative appointments but did so less frequently than recommended was still, absent evidence to the contrary, receiving continuous care from his medical practitioners, such that the doctrine of continuous treatment applied to render his notice of claim timely. Sow v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 451061/2013 (Feb. 11).

The plaintiff underwent eye surgeries in 2007 and 2008. He attended regular postoperative appointments soon after these surgeries, but did so less frequently after a time. The plaintiff's final such visit was on June 6, 2012. In August 2012, less than three months later, he filed this malpractice suit against the hospital, among others. The plaintiff moved the court to declare his notice of claim timely.

The court noted that each time the plaintiff had visited the hospital, doctors there instructed him to schedule a follow-up visit, indicating that they expected to continue providing the plaintiff with care. The defendants offered no proof that the plaintiff thought that he was no longer receiving continuous care after Sept. 29, 2010; without such proof, the infrequency of the plaintiff's later visits, alone, did not show that continuous post-operative care had ended. Therefore, the court deemed the plaintiff's notice of claim timely.

'