Howe v. Hull case brief summary
874 F.Supp. 779 (1994)
CASE FACTS
In order to prove a violation of EMTALA against the hospital, PR was required to proved that deceased was transferred before he was stabilized, even if the transfer was solely because of his HIV status. There was a genuine issue of material fact whether deceased was inappropriately transferred.
DISCUSSION
Suggested Study Aids and Books
874 F.Supp. 779 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff personal
representative (PR) sued defendant doctor and his health care
facility and alleged that defendants refused to provide deceased
medical treatment, in violation of the Emergency Transfer and Active
Labor Act (EMTALA), the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA), and
the Federal Rehabilitation Act (FRA) because he was infected with
HIV. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.CASE FACTS
In order to prove a violation of EMTALA against the hospital, PR was required to proved that deceased was transferred before he was stabilized, even if the transfer was solely because of his HIV status. There was a genuine issue of material fact whether deceased was inappropriately transferred.
DISCUSSION
- The court ruled that PR could not maintain a suit under EMTALA against doctor as an individual physician, but he could sue doctor under the ADA and it was a jury issue whether doctor was an operator of a public accommodation.
- They could not say as a matter of law that doctor denied treatment of deceased because of his HIV status.
- However, PR had presented sufficient evidence to preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants under both the ADA and the FRA.
- Hospital may have unjustifiably transferred deceased because it did not wish to care for an HIV patient.
- If doctor refused to admit deceased because of his HIV status, he could also be held liable.
- Receipt of federal funds under the Medicare and Medicaid programs was sufficient to bring a claim under FRA. PR could state a claim for intentional, but not negligent, infliction of emotional distress.
CONCLUSION
The court granted doctor's
motion for summary judgment as to the EMTALA and negligent infliction
of emotional distress claims, but denied it as to the ADA, FRA and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The court
granted hospital's motion for summary judgment on the negligent
infliction of emotional distress claim, but denied it as to the
EMTALA, ADA, FRA and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims.Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment