Davis v. Township of Paulsboro
2006 WL 784949, 424 F. Supp. 2d 773, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13307 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital satisfies the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act's (EMTALA) 'appropriate medical screening' requirement if it applies its standard screening procedures uniformly to all patients with similar symptoms; a claim of misdiagnosis or medical negligence, without evidence of disparate treatment, is insufficient to establish an EMTALA violation.
Facts:
- On August 13, 2000, Ernest Davis was struck in the head with a glass bottle during an altercation outside a nightclub.
- Police officers found Davis bleeding and belligerent; after a confrontation, they arrested him using pepper spray.
- Davis was transported by ambulance to the Underwood Memorial Hospital (UMH) emergency room.
- Dr. Richard Arriviello examined Davis, noted he was properly oriented, and performed a physical examination but did not order a CT scan or x-ray.
- Dr. Arriviello diagnosed Davis with a ruptured eardrum and scalp abrasion, declared him 'fit for incarceration,' and discharged him into police custody.
- After being held at the police station, Davis was transferred to the county jail, where he was found unresponsive and bleeding from his ear, nose, and scalp.
- Davis was rushed to a different hospital, Cooper Hospital, where he underwent emergency brain surgery for a subdural hematoma and a subarachnoid hemorrhage.
- Davis died four years later on October 15, 2004.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Ernest Davis (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Dr. Arriviello, Emergency Physicians Services, LLC, and Underwood Memorial Hospital (medical defendants).
- The complaint included claims under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and various state law claims such as professional negligence and wrongful death.
- The medical defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims against them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a hospital violate the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act's (EMTALA) appropriate medical screening requirement by failing to diagnose a patient's brain hemorrhage, when the plaintiff offers expert testimony that the standard of care was breached but provides no evidence that the hospital treated the patient differently from other patients with similar symptoms?
Opinions:
Majority - Irenas, Senior District Judge
No. A hospital does not violate EMTALA's appropriate medical screening requirement merely by misdiagnosing a patient's condition, so long as it provides the same screening to that patient as it provides to all other patients with similar symptoms. The court first held that EMTALA claims against the individual physician, Dr. Arriviello, and his employer, EPS, fail as a matter of law because the statute only creates a private right of action against hospitals. Regarding the hospital (UMH), the court explained that EMTALA is not a federal medical malpractice statute. Its purpose is to prevent 'patient dumping' by ensuring hospitals screen all patients uniformly, regardless of their ability to pay. To state a valid claim, a plaintiff must show evidence of disparate treatment—that the hospital failed to apply its standard screening procedures to them as it would to any other patient. In this case, the Plaintiffs only provided an expert opinion that Dr. Arriviello's care was medically inadequate for failing to order a CT scan. Citing precedent like Baber v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., the court concluded that an expert's opinion on the standard of care, while relevant to a state malpractice claim, does not create a question of fact as to whether the patient received disparate treatment under EMTALA. Since Plaintiffs offered no evidence that UMH treated Davis differently than other patients with head injuries, their EMTALA claim fails.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between a federal EMTALA claim and a state medical malpractice claim. The court clarifies that the core inquiry under EMTALA's screening provision is not the quality or accuracy of the medical examination, but whether the examination was administered inequitably compared to other patients. This ruling makes it significantly harder for plaintiffs to federalize what are essentially medical negligence cases, requiring them to produce concrete evidence of disparate treatment rather than just relying on expert testimony about a breach of the standard of care. It solidifies the position that EMTALA serves the narrow purpose of ensuring access to emergency care, not guaranteeing its quality.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Township of Paulsboro