Stafford v. Burns — Nov. 2016 (Summary)

EMTALA/MALPRACTICE CLAIM

Stafford v. Burns
No. 1 CA-CV 15-0476 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016)

The Court of Appeal of Arizona affirmed that a heightened burden of proof applied to a patient’s claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death, since services were provided in compliance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”).

The patient arrived at a hospital’s emergency department after ingesting an unknown quantity of methadone. The patient was tested, evaluated, and monitored for possible methadone overdose by a physician. A second physician took over the patient’s care until he was discharged 12 hours later. The following day, the patient was found dead. The patient’s parents brought an action against the second physician, alleging that she negligently caused the patient’s death by discharging him prematurely. The parents’ burden of proof was rooted in a state statute that provides protections for emergency medical providers.

The parents denied the applicability of EMTALA because their complaint did not include an EMTALA claim and that their son was not diagnosed with an emergency medical condition.  However, the court found EMTALA applicable in this case because its mandates apply to all patients presented in emergency departments seeking treatment for what may be an emergency medical condition. The court noted that the fact that the patient was not ultimately diagnosed with an emergency medical condition is not dispositive. Nor was the fact that a different physician had already determined the patient did not have an emergency medical condition. The court found that if the patient was misdiagnosed or discharged prematurely, as the patient’s parents contend, those actions occurred in the course of providing EMTALA-mandated services. Therefore, the heightened burden of proof applied.