Mullins v. Suburban Hosp. Healthcare Sys., Inc. — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

EMTALA

Mullins v. Suburban Hosp. Healthcare Sys., Inc.
Civil Action No. PX 16-1113 (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2017)

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss claims of medical malpractice and violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”).

A patient went to a hospital’s emergency room for stabilization of a hand injury.  When the patient’s request for a transfer to a hand specialty facility for treatment was denied, the on-call physician performed the surgery himself.  The patient later filed suit against the hospital, treating physicians, and the hand specialty facility for medical malpractice and violations of EMTALA.

Because the patient was screened, stabilized, diagnosed, and treated at the hospital, all of which are requirements under EMTALA, the court found that the patient had no basis to stake a claim under the statute.  The appropriateness of care, the court noted, is a different concern that implicates state medical malpractice laws and is not addressed by EMTALA.  EMTALA is not a federal malpractice statute.  Accordingly, the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the claim.

The court also granted the hospital’s and physicians’ motions to dismiss the medical malpractice claims, because the patient did not comply with the appropriate Maryland procedures for filing his claims.  The court did, however, deny the hand specialty facility’s motion to dismiss the claim under EMTALA’s “reverse-dumping” provision, which mandates that hospitals with specialized capabilities “shall not refuse to accept an appropriate transfer” from another facility.  Therefore, the patient’s allegations that the hand specialty facility was a participating hospital with specialized services and refused his transfer request were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.

Finally, the court denied the patient’s motion to amend his complaint, on the basis that his proposed amendments had no bearing on the pending motions to dismiss.