Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Howe v. Hull case brief

Howe v. Hull case brief summary
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

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...