Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Public Health — EMTALA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 20, 2012//

Public Health — EMTALA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 20, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Public Health — EMTALA

Where a hospital refused a patient in labor because it had no obstetrics facility, it did not violate EMTALA.

“There is nothing inconsistent in the 2003 and 2001 definitions. The two are consistent in holding that an individual will be deemed to have come to the emergency department if that person is in an ambulance owned and operated by the hospital. The 2003 definition merely provided guidance as to what it means for an ambulance to be ‘operated by’ a hospital. The district court properly held that the 2003 amendment is a clarification, which therefore applies in interpreting the meaning of the 2001 language. Because the Wishard ambulance was operating under the EMS protocol at the time the plaintiffs were in it, the plaintiffs had not come to the Wishard emergency department under the EMTALA, and the plaintiffs’ claim cannot succeed.”

Affirmed.

11-3691 Beller v. Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County, Indiana

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Pratt, J., Rovner, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests