Marie Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hospital Partners
892 F.3d 585 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's expression of disagreement with a hospital's decision not to self-report a known violation does not constitute a "report" protected under EMTALA's whistleblower provision. To receive protection, an employee must transmit information about a potential violation that is not already known by the employer.
Facts:
- Marie Gillispie was a registered nurse and Quality Project Coordinator at Southwest Regional Medical Center.
- On October 23, 2012, a pregnant patient, 'E.R.', presented at the Medical Center's emergency room with pain and bleeding.
- Because the Medical Center lacked a gynecologist, staff discharged E.R. and instructed her to go to another hospital without providing transportation or confirming her arrival.
- The next day, the Medical Center's CEO, Cynthia Cowie, convened meetings to discuss the incident with Gillispie and other personnel.
- During a second meeting, attendees, including Gillispie, agreed that the discharge of E.R. constituted an EMTALA violation.
- Cowie decided not to report the violation to regulatory authorities, despite Gillispie protesting and urging the group to self-report.
- On November 1, 2012, Gillispie gave Cowie a letter again stating her belief that the hospital had an obligation to self-report the EMTALA violation.
- At the conclusion of that meeting, Cowie terminated Gillispie's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie Gillispie sued Southwest Regional Medical Center and its parent companies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging retaliation under EMTALA and various state law claims.
- Gillispie amended her complaint to add claims under the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act.
- The District Court dismissed the MCARE Act claims as being barred by the statute of limitations.
- The Medical Center moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
- A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the District Court grant summary judgment to the Medical Center.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation, granting summary judgment to the Medical Center on all remaining counts.
- Gillispie, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 employee engage in protected activity under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act's (EMTALA) whistleblower provision by expressing disagreement with management's decision not to self-report a potential violation, when management is already fully aware of the facts constituting the violation?
Opinions:
Majority - McKee, Circuit Judge
No. A hospital employee's disagreement with a management decision not to report a known violation is not a protected "report" under EMTALA's whistleblower provision. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which requires a plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The first element is demonstrating engagement in a protected activity. EMTALA protects employees who "report a violation." As the statute does not define "report," the court applied its ordinary meaning: the transmission of information or a notification. Gillispie's own deposition testimony established that all attendees at the second meeting were already aware of the facts and had concluded that an EMTALA violation occurred before she voiced her opinion. Therefore, she did not transmit any new information; she merely expressed disagreement with the subsequent decision not to self-report. This is distinct from the broader protection for "opposing" a violation found in other statutes like Title VII. While an internal report can be protected activity, it must still involve providing information that was not already known.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of protected activity under EMTALA's whistleblower provision, distinguishing it from broader anti-retaliation statutes like Title VII. It clarifies that merely participating in an internal discussion about a known compliance failure and disagreeing with management's course of action is insufficient for protection. The ruling establishes that for an employee's communication to be considered a 'report,' it must function as a transmittal of new information to the recipient. This creates a higher threshold for employees seeking protection, as they must be the source of information about a violation, not just an advocate for a particular response to a violation already known by the employer.
