Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr. (Summary)

EMTALA

Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., Civil Action No. 06-3179 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2006)

This lawsuit arose from injuries and/or deaths of patients at a hospital in New Orleans which occurred during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in August/September 2005. During the hurricane, roughly 1,000 people were trapped in the hospital. Despite the rescue efforts made to evacuate the building, many patients remained trapped inside for an extended period. In total, approximately 35 patients died and many were injured. Various patients and relatives of the deceased and allegedly injured filed a suit against the hospital in district court and petitioned for class certification. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd, on the grounds that the hospital committed “reverse patient dumping” by deciding to evacuate certain patients while leaving others behind. The plaintiffs claimed federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of this claim.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the action to state court on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The court concluded that a viable cause of action under federal law does not exist for “reverse patient dumping.” Accordingly, the claim failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The court reasoned that the Congressional intent behind EMTALA was to prevent “patient dumping,” the situation in which a doctor or hospital refuses to provide emergency medical treatment to a patient who is unable to pay for the medical services. EMTALA provides for civil monetary penalties against hospitals and doctors who improperly transfer or discharge (“dump”) emergency room patients before the patient’s condition is stabilized. EMTALA states that this private right of action is only available to patients who were injured through the hospital/doctor’s improper transfer or discharge prior to stabilization. Because none of the patients in this case were injured due to improper transfer or discharge, the court concluded that there was no actionable claim under EMTALA. The court noted that this determination is consistent with the legislative intent behind EMTALA, as the statute was not intended to be used as a federal malpractice statute.