CORPORATE LIABILITY
Love v. Rancocas Hosp., No. Civ.A.01-5456 (D.N.J. June
29, 2005)
A patient brought a malpractice action against a hospital and several physicians
alleging Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA")
violations. The patient also asserted that the hospital had "direct corporate
liability," which the United States District Court of New Jersey interpreted
as a claim that the hospital failed to adequately train, instruct, and supervise
its employees. The court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment
on the EMTALA claim, finding the patient raised genuine issues of fact as to
whether she received the treatment necessary to stabilize her condition and
was stable at discharge. However, summary judgment was granted in favor of
the hospital for the direct corporate liability claim, as the patient failed
to demonstrate that the hospital did not train its personnel properly, appointed
unskilled or unqualified health care providers, or failed to establish proper
procedures for running the Emergency Department.