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.