Delibertis v. Pottstown Hospital Co.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6913, 152 F. Supp. 3d 394, 2016 WL 245310 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a hospital fails to provide an 'appropriate medical screening' if it treats a patient differently from its other similarly situated patients. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a hospital must produce evidence of its own standard screening procedures for the condition in question, not merely evidence that the treating physician followed their personal protocol.
Facts:
- On February 24, 2014, Valentine Delibertis arrived at Pottstown Memorial Medical Center with his wife, Katherine Delibertis, who believed he was having a stroke.
- Mrs. Delibertis informed the treating physician, Dr. Buckley, that her husband was confused, his speech was slurred, his face was drooping, and he had lost feeling in his foot.
- Dr. Buckley's notes conflicted with Mrs. Delibertis's account, stating there was "[n]o slurred speech or facial droop that wife noticed."
- Dr. Buckley administered tests which resulted in an NIH Stroke Scale of zero and a perfect Glasgow Coma Score of 15, indicating no signs of a stroke.
- Despite the test results, Dr. Buckley wrote in the medical record that Mr. Delibertis's "condition represents a certified medical emergency."
- After consulting another physician, Dr. Buckley discharged Mr. Delibertis approximately ninety minutes after his arrival, concluding his symptoms had completely resolved.
- Three hours after being discharged, Mr. Delibertis returned to the same emergency room and was diagnosed with a stroke by a different doctor.
Procedural Posture:
- Valentine and Kathleen Delibertis (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Pottstown Hospital Company, LLC, Dr. Buckley, and Dr. Jimenez-De La Cruz (defendants).
- The complaint included claims against Pottstown for violating EMTALA's 'failure to screen' and 'failure to stabilize' provisions.
- The complaint also included state-law negligence claims against Pottstown, Dr. Buckley, and Dr. Jimenez-De La Cruz.
- Pottstown filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both EMTALA claims.
- Dr. Jimenez-De La Cruz filed a separate, unopposed motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim against her.
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 moving for summary judgment on an EMTALA 'failure to screen' claim meet its evidentiary burden by showing the treating physician followed his personal protocol, without providing any evidence of the hospital's own standard screening procedures for similarly situated patients?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart Dalzell, District Judge.
No. A hospital does not meet its burden for summary judgment on an EMTALA 'failure to screen' claim by simply providing evidence of an individual physician's personal practices; it must produce evidence of the hospital's institutional screening procedures. The court reasoned that EMTALA's screening requirement is not about a general standard of care but about whether a hospital applied its own screening procedures uniformly to all patients. The hospital, Pottstown, argued that Dr. Buckley followed his usual protocol, but the court found this irrelevant. Citing precedent like Blake v. Main Line Hospitals, the court emphasized that without evidence of the hospital's actual screening policies for patients presenting with stroke-like symptoms, it is impossible to determine whether Mr. Delibertis was treated differently than other similarly situated patients. Because Pottstown failed to produce this essential evidence, a genuine issue of material fact remained, precluding summary judgment on the 'failure to screen' claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the central inquiry in an EMTALA 'failure to screen' claim is whether the hospital provided disparate treatment, not whether it committed malpractice. It places a clear evidentiary burden on defendant hospitals during the summary judgment phase to produce their own internal screening policies and procedures. This holding makes it more difficult for hospitals to dismiss 'failure to screen' claims before trial, especially if their procedures are unwritten, informal, or poorly documented. For plaintiffs, it provides a clear path to surviving summary judgment by highlighting the defendant hospital's failure to produce evidence of its own uniform practices.
