Scott v. Memorial Health Care Sys., Inc. — Aug. 2016 (Summary)

EMTALA

Scott v. Memorial Health Care Sys., Inc.
No. 15-6173 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment on an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) claim in favor of a hospital against an executrix representing herself and her deceased husband.

After arriving at the hospital’s emergency room, medical staff noted that the decedent was slurring his speech and exhibiting a facial droop. After running several diagnostic tests, the decedent was diagnosed with Bell’s palsy, a medical condition that is not related to a stroke. However, less than two hours later, the decedent experienced additional changes in his mental status which led to a finding of an occluded artery, and a transfer was initiated to another hospital for more advanced treatment.  After being released from the second hospital, the decedent died eight months later after suffering a second stroke.

The executrix alleged that the hospital violated EMTALA by providing inappropriate screening when her husband arrived at the emergency room suffering stroke-like symptoms and failing to offer treatment to stabilize his condition.  She further alleged that the hospital failed to provide the proper written certification for the transfer and failed to forward the decedent’s medical records in a proper and organized fashion.

The court, however, held that the executrix’s failure to provide expert medical testimony showing that the harm that the decedent suffered was not the result of the stroke he had, but was the result of the hospital’s failure to provide an appropriate screening, the hospital’s failure to stabilize him properly, or the hospital’s deficiencies in the transfer process “dooms” her EMTALA claims. The court concluded that the executrix failed to establish that the subsequent decline of the decedent’s condition was not attributable to the earlier stroke or its natural progression, but rather to the later medical steps that the hospital’s staff did or did not take. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment.