Mikeska v. Las Cruces Reg’l Med. Ctr., LLC — Apr. 2016 (Summary)

EMTALA

Mikeska v. Las Cruces Reg’l Med. Ctr., LLC
No. 33,836 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2016)

The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed a lower court ruling in favor of a hospital finding that it had not violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) with regard to treatment rendered to a patient. The patient had visited the emergency room in question twice on the same day and was discharged on both occasions after being misdiagnosed with a ruptured ovarian cyst. Four days later, she returned to the emergency room, at which point she was accurately diagnosed with a bowel obstruction. The patient filed her initial suit alleging that she was inadequately screened and was inappropriately discharged under EMTALA. The patient argued that the lower court erred in a number of ways concerning jury instructions, the use of an expert witness, and what evidence was considered admissible.

The court held that the lower court erred in allowing an expert witness to testify concerning the scope and intent of EMTALA which are matters of law, rather than limiting his testimony to opinions on matters pertaining to his field of expertise, which was emergency medicine.  The court held that it was also error for the trial court to allow the expert to reference the fact that the patient actually had health insurance coverage, which interjected a false issue into the trial with regard to the elements necessary to establish an EMTALA claim. Finally, the court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury to disregard evidence that the patient was misdiagnosed.