How the Anti-Patient Dumping Act Protects You from Negligence in the ER

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This law was a response to widespread reports of “patient dumping” by hospital emergency departments, who would turn away patients with serious, life-threatening conditions simply because they lacked health insurance or otherwise could not pay for treatment. In many cases, private hospitals would simply dump these patients on public hospitals.

Georgia Court of Appeals: Failure to Screen Is Not a “Medical Malpractice” Claim

EMTALA, also known as the “Anti-Patient Dumping Act” supersedes any conflicting state laws. At the same time, EMTALA does not completely displace state laws in certain areas, such as medical malpractice. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this potential conflict in a case, Estate of Tomlinson v. Houston Healthcare, involving a particular requirement of Georgia’s medical malpractice laws.

The underlying dispute involves the death of a 99-year-old Georgia woman. In March 2021, the victim was taken to the defendant hospital’s emergency room. She presented with symptoms of severe pain, fainting, and dizziness. The hospital did not perform any tests, monitor her vital signs, or admit her as an inpatient. Instead, after a few hours, the hospital sent the victim home, where she was reportedly left alone and unable to care for herself. She died approximately one month later.

The victim’s estate subsequently sued the hospital, alleging it violated EMTALA. The hospital moved to dismiss the lawsuit because it did not include an “expert affidavit,” which is a requirement for medical malpractice cases in Georgia. The trial court agreed with the hospital and dismissed the case.

The Court of Appeals, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit. The appellate court explained that EMTALA imposes two legal duties on hospitals. First, when a patient arrives at an emergency department and requests treatment, the hospital must provide an “appropriate medical screening examination” to determine if the patient has an “emergency medical condition.” Second, if the patient does have an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide additional examination and treatment to “stabilize” their condition, at least until they can be transferred to another medical facility.

Georgia’s expert affidavit requirement applies to claims involving “professional negligence.” As the Court of Appeals saw it, the first requirement of EMTALA–conducting a medical screening examination–did not fall within a professional negligence claim. Indeed, EMTALA does not require the hospital to properly diagnose a patient. Rather, it simply mandates the hospital have a uniform screening procedure that is consistently applied to all patients. Since that does not involve the use of any professional judgment, the estate could proceed with their lawsuit on that point.

That said, the second duty imposed by EMTALA–providing additional care to stabilize a patient with an emergency condition–does not require the exercise of professional judgment. As such, the Court of Appeals held this fell within the scope of medical malpractice, and therefore the estate should have filed an expert affidavit. That part of their case could therefore not proceed.

Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers Today

If you, or someone that you care about, has been killed or seriously injured due to professional negligence on the part of a hospital or nursing home, it is critical that you speak with a qualified Atlanta personal injury lawyer right away. Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers today. We serve clients throughout Georgia including Atlanta, Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Johns Creek and Sandy Springs.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6404383096016052907