For Your Data Bryant V. Adventist Wellness System/West Instance Brief
December 01, 2020
Edit
Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West (2001)
289 F.3d 1162
Facts
-The decedent sought handling at the infirmary operators’ emergency room for coughing upwardly blood together with a fever.
-Based on an x-ray, the emergency room physician diagnosed pneumonia together with asthma.
-The physician failed to uncovering a large lung abscess (an admitted emergency condition) from the x-ray, and, after administering the medication, discharged the decedent.
-When approximately other doc read the x-ray together with discovered the ABCs, the decedent was admitted to the infirmary equally an inpatient.
-The decedent was together with then transferred to the intensive attention unit of measurement of approximately other infirmary together with subsequently released, after which he of a precipitous died.
Procedural History
-Plaintiff heirs sued several defendants, including accused infirmary operators, arising from the decease of the heirs’ decedent. The claims against the infirmary operators included violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
-The heirs appealed the grant of summary judgment to the hotel operators yesteryear the the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Issue
-What duty of attention does a infirmary have?
Holding
-Under the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, a infirmary has a duty to stabilize alone those emergency medical atmospheric condition that its staff detects. HOWEVER, H5N1 infirmary may hold out flora liable if the screening exam is hence cursory that it is non designed to seat needlelike together with severe symptoms that alarm the physician of the postulate for immediate medical attending to foreclose serious bodily injury.
Application/Rules
-If an private seeks emergency attention from a infirmary amongst an emergency room, together with if that infirmary participates inwards the Medicare program, together with then the infirmary must furnish for an appropriate medical screening exam inside the capability of the hospital’s emergency subdivision to gain upwardly one's take away heed whether or non an emergency medical status exists.
-If the hospital’s medical staff determines that at that topographic point is an emergency medical condition, then, except nether for sure circumstances, the staff must “stabilize” the patient earlier transferring or discharging the patient.
-To stabilize way to furnish such medical handling of the status equally may hold out necessary to assure, inside reasonable medical probability, that no cloth deterioration of the status is probable to number from or laissez passer on off during the transfer of the private from a facility.
-Transfer includes both discharge together with crusade to approximately other facility.
-Under the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, an “emergency medical condition” is defined inwards component as: a medical status manifesting itself yesteryear needlelike symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attending could reasonably hold out expected to number inwards (1) placing the wellness of the private inwards serious jeopardy, (2) serious harm to bodily functions, or (3) serious dysfunction of whatever bodily organ or part.
-The the US Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) holds that a infirmary does non violate the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, if it fails to uncovering or if it misdiagnoses an emergency condition. An private who receives substandard medical attention may pursue medical malpractice remedies nether dry ground law.
Conclusion• The courtroom of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
---
Interested inwards learning how to become the pinnacle grades inwards your police line schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
289 F.3d 1162
Facts
-The decedent sought handling at the infirmary operators’ emergency room for coughing upwardly blood together with a fever.
-Based on an x-ray, the emergency room physician diagnosed pneumonia together with asthma.
-The physician failed to uncovering a large lung abscess (an admitted emergency condition) from the x-ray, and, after administering the medication, discharged the decedent.
-When approximately other doc read the x-ray together with discovered the ABCs, the decedent was admitted to the infirmary equally an inpatient.
-The decedent was together with then transferred to the intensive attention unit of measurement of approximately other infirmary together with subsequently released, after which he of a precipitous died.
Procedural History
-Plaintiff heirs sued several defendants, including accused infirmary operators, arising from the decease of the heirs’ decedent. The claims against the infirmary operators included violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
-The heirs appealed the grant of summary judgment to the hotel operators yesteryear the the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Issue
-What duty of attention does a infirmary have?
Holding
-Under the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, a infirmary has a duty to stabilize alone those emergency medical atmospheric condition that its staff detects. HOWEVER, H5N1 infirmary may hold out flora liable if the screening exam is hence cursory that it is non designed to seat needlelike together with severe symptoms that alarm the physician of the postulate for immediate medical attending to foreclose serious bodily injury.
Application/Rules
-If an private seeks emergency attention from a infirmary amongst an emergency room, together with if that infirmary participates inwards the Medicare program, together with then the infirmary must furnish for an appropriate medical screening exam inside the capability of the hospital’s emergency subdivision to gain upwardly one's take away heed whether or non an emergency medical status exists.
-If the hospital’s medical staff determines that at that topographic point is an emergency medical condition, then, except nether for sure circumstances, the staff must “stabilize” the patient earlier transferring or discharging the patient.
-To stabilize way to furnish such medical handling of the status equally may hold out necessary to assure, inside reasonable medical probability, that no cloth deterioration of the status is probable to number from or laissez passer on off during the transfer of the private from a facility.
-Transfer includes both discharge together with crusade to approximately other facility.
-Under the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, an “emergency medical condition” is defined inwards component as: a medical status manifesting itself yesteryear needlelike symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attending could reasonably hold out expected to number inwards (1) placing the wellness of the private inwards serious jeopardy, (2) serious harm to bodily functions, or (3) serious dysfunction of whatever bodily organ or part.
-The the US Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) holds that a infirmary does non violate the Emergency Medical Treatment together with Active Labor Act, if it fails to uncovering or if it misdiagnoses an emergency condition. An private who receives substandard medical attention may pursue medical malpractice remedies nether dry ground law.
Conclusion• The courtroom of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
---
Interested inwards learning how to become the pinnacle grades inwards your police line schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?