Glaskox v. George Cty. Hosp. — Aug. 2016 (Summary)

EMTALA

Glaskox v. George Cty. Hosp.
Civil No. 1:16cv9-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Aug. 1, 2016)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted a defendant hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing a patient’s Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement of state law.

The plaintiff patient went to a hospital’s emergency department due to abdominal pain after an abdominal surgery.  Since only nine days had passed since the patient’s surgery, a physician determined that it would be best to transfer the patient to the medical center where she received the surgery in order for the patient to receive a higher level of care from physicians who are familiar with her case.  The patient alleged that prior to her transfer she went into shock and was not in a stable condition.  The hospital proceeded with the transfer and the patient suffered limb complications resulting in amputation.  The patient filed an EMTALA claim against the hospital asserting that the hospital failed to stabilize her before she was transferred, and that failure caused her injury and a loss of chance of a better result.

EMTALA allows patients injured by hospital failure to obtain damages available under state law, thereby acting in concert with state law.  In this case, state law requires the patient to file a pre-suit notice of her claim with the hospital in order to proceed, or risk having her claim dismissed. The patient did not file a pre-suit notice with the hospital, and argued that the state requirement was in conflict with EMTALA which would prevent her from complying with the pre-suit notice requirement.

The court held that the pre-suit notice requirement was not in conflict with EMTALA, and in theory would actually support the underlying policy of EMTALA by allowing hospitals to respond to patient allegations more quickly in order to prevent further patient injuries due to similar treatment.  Because the pre-suit notice requirement was not in conflict, and such notice is required under state law in order to proceed with the EMTALA claim, the court granted the hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the patient’s EMTALA claim.