Munoz v. Watsonville Cmty. Hosp. — Jan. 2017 (Summary)

EMTALA

Munoz v. Watsonville Cmty. Hosp.
Case No. 15-cv-00932-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2017)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted dismissal in part and denied dismissal in part in a lawsuit alleging that a hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) when it failed to diagnose a patient’s internal hernia, peritonitis, and septic shock and discharged her, despite her complaints that her pain level was an 8 on a scale of 10.

The patient, who previously underwent gastric bypass surgery, died after twice presenting to the emergency department, on the same day, complaining of severe pain.  While the patient was examined, given a laxative and pain medication, and determined to be suffering from an emergency medical condition (severe pain), the decision was ultimately made to discharge the patient despite her complaints that her pain level remained an 8 on a scale of 10.  After returning home, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest, which led to her death.  The patient’s son sued, alleging that the hospital violated EMTALA because it performed a disparate or cursory exam and failed to stabilize the patient’s emergency medical condition prior to discharge.

The court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the claim related to the adequacy of the screening examination.  The court noted that just because the patient came to the same ED twice in one day does not mean the ED was required to provide the same screening examination during both visits.  In support of this finding, the court pointed out the fact that the circumstances were different during the second visit than they were during the first.  In the end, the court noted that while the son may be able to support a cause of action for malpractice, based on the hospital’s failure to identify the patient’s emergency medical condition, the son failed to present evidence of disparate treatment to support a claim for violation of EMTALA.

The court refused to dismiss the claim related to failure to stabilize, however.  The court noted that the emergency medical condition identified by the ED physician was “severe pain” and, despite this, the patient was discharged with a pain level of 8 out of 10.  Further, during the patient’s second visit to the ED, she was not provided pain treatment (instead being treated with Ativan, for anxiety, Haldol, an antipsychotic, and a soap-suds enema).  These allegations were sufficient for the son’s claim to survive dismissal and move forward for additional litigation.