Index Case 7
Ankle Injury
Testing and Treatment
Disposition
Billing
Return ED Visit
Outcome
Plaintiff Claims
Defense Response
Legal Outcome
Case Review
Documentation Review
The judge’s ruling is shown below.
The court’s opinion addresses the false conception that a misdiagnosis constitutes an EMTALA violation:
The judge addressed the claim that under EMTALA, a hospital must provide screening that is outside of its capabilities.
The plaintiff also claimed that delays in the patient’s care constituted an EMTALA violation. While there may be a medical argument that the patient’s care was delayed, the legal argument that his care was delayed in violation of EMTALA is incorrect. Under EMTALA, a violation only occurs if there is a delay due to inquiring about a patient’s ability to pay.
The judge’s decision was to dismiss the case. The plaintiff had the opportunity to amend their complaint, but did not do so.
Note that the judge’s decisions shown here are only considered under the scope of EMTALA. A case may fail the requirements needed to establish an EMTALA case in federal court, but may still be considered under a state civil court. In fact, the vast majority of medical malpractice cases are handled in state civil court, not in federal court.
The plaintiff filed the case in state court. The case was eventually dismissed. Unfortunately the state court does not have any public records, and it is impossible to tell if a settlement was reached or if the case was dismissed outright.