Kaplan v. Blue Hill Mem’l Hosp. (Summary)

EMTALA

Kaplan v. Blue Hill Mem’l Hosp., Civil No. 1:14-CV-276-DBH (D. Me. Dec. 17, 2014)

Order Affirming Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine denied a hospital’s motion to dismiss a couple’s Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) retaliation claim, holding that the couple engaged in protected activity. Plaintiffs, a physician assistant and a physician, were married and employed at the defendant, a hospital. The physician assistant alleged that throughout her employment she would inform the hospital about various practices she believed were in violation of EMTALA. Additionally, she allegedly documented EMTALA violations found in 300 patient charts. She was terminated after the hospital replaced physician assistants with licensed physicians in its emergency room.

The physician alleged that throughout his employment he notified hospital management of practices that he believed were in violation of EMTALA, such as stabilization issues, refusing to promptly admit patients, and patient dumping. After a professional review action against the physician, the hospital terminated the physician from its medical staff and reported this information to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

The couple brought suit claiming that they were both terminated for reporting potential EMTALA violations to hospital management. The hospital argued that the couple had failed to report any actual EMTALA violations, but instead only raised quality of care issues, not disparate treatment of uninsured patients.

The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss, holding that the couple’s complaints to management could reasonably be construed as relating to violations of EMTALA. The court explained that the couple’s complaints specifically addressed the screening, transfer, and stabilization requirements of EMTALA.