Obligations to Provide Care: Overview of EMTALA (Case Study Sample)
Proceed to the LSU website that provides information on EMTALA litigation cases (or another site that provides information on these cases and provide the URL for that site).
Choose one case, and provide the following information:
1-An overview of the federal EMTALA legislation
2-Identify the parties involved in the EMTALA case and their respective interests.
3-Discuss the basic facts of the case.
4-Detail the main issue(s) of the case.
5-Summarize the Court Ruling/Holding for the case.
6-Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the Court's ruling and the rationale for your opinion.
7-Discuss the practical significance/implications of the Court Ruling/Holding taking into consideration the background materials for this module and current research.
Obligations to Provide Care
Obligations to Provide Care
Overview of EMTALA
Passed by Congress in 1986, the legislation requires that hospitals with emergency facilities must provide care to individuals that need emergency treatment regardless of their legal status, ability to pay, and citizenship (Barish, Mcgauly, & Arnold, 2012). This also includes delivering the infant of a woman who is in labor. The law triggers physician-patient relationship because once the patient received an examination from a physician after requesting emergency care, the physician has to provide all the care needed before the patient is transferred to another physician or discharged (LSU, 2009). The duty is applicable to all medical staff members that may be called upon to help in the delivery of emergency care if needed. According to LSU (2009), the three ways in which the legislation can be violated by physicians are when they refuse to carry out screening examination, exercise improper transfer of a patient to another facility, and when they refuse to provide the care that is needed. It is important to note that there is no cause of action that the legislation creates against the physician unless there is a medical malpractice (LSU, 2009).
Parties Involved (Bode v. Parkview Health Sys., Inc. No. 1:07-CV-324 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 23, 2009)
The court allowed the parents of the deceased boy to pursue a claim against Parkview Hospital for not performing medical screening as required under EMTALA (Ream, n.d.). The parents and the hospital were parties involved. The parents wanted justice for the death of their son as they claimed the hospital had violated its duties as per EMTALA legislation. From their point of view, the hospital failed to afford their child, Makota, appropriate medical screening and released him in unstable condition. On the other hand, Parkview, the defendants admitted to the deviations but considered them insignificant. It was also the claim of the hospital that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the hospital and as a matter of law, they were entitled to judgment.
Makota had multiple developmental and health problems. By the age of 6, he was using a walker to talk and was not talking. He was broug
- Law Case Study and QuestionsDescription: Law Case Study and Questions Case Study...2 pages/≈550 words | 3 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Case Study |
- Unit III Prepare Four Briefing Papers: Cybersquatting, Force Majeure ClauseDescription: Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business questions. ...1 page/≈275 words | 2 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Case Study |
- Shouldice HospitalDescription: Shouldice Hospital Literature and Language Case Study...2 pages/≈550 words | 2 Sources | APA | Literature & Language | Case Study |