Recent Sixth Circuit Opinion may place additional duties on health care providers under EMTALA

On April 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the estate of a woman murdered by her husband ten days after he was discharged from a hospital following a psychotic episode may pursue claims against the hospital under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The case, Moses v. Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, Inc., declined to follow traditional interpretations of EMTALA and could drastically affect claims brought under the Act in the future.

The court broadened the scope of “any individual who suffers personal harm” to allow third-parties who suffer personal harm as a direct result of an alleged EMTALA violation to bring an action under the statute.

The court rejected the rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that if a hospital admits an individual as an inpatient in good faith to stabilize an emergency medical condition, the hospital has satisfied its duties under EMTALA.

The court held that hospitals have an affirmative duty under EMTALA not just to admit a patient, but (1) to treat the patient in order to stabilize him, and (2) to not release a patient without first determining that the patient has actually been stabilized.

Click here to read the entire opinion.