Index Case 7
Ankle Injury
Testing and Treatment
Disposition
Billing
Return ED Visit
Outcome
Plaintiff Claims
Defense Response
Legal Outcome
Case Review
Documentation Review
The plaintiff’s attorney filed a lawsuit alleging violation of EMTALA. The complaint spans 34 pages and 84 paragraphs. Rather than including the entire document, relevant selections are shown below to illustrate the claims. EMTALA claims are not brought against specific individuals, they are brought against the hospital.
EMTALA requires that patients presenting to an ED must undergo a medical screening exam to identify emergency conditions. One of the critical accusations in this case was that the hospital violated EMTALA by providing inappropriate screening. As a part of this assertion, the plaintiff claims that the hospital employees provided inadequate screening because they were trying to care for the patient in a cost-conscious way. Necrotizing fasciitis is abbreviated as NF throughout these documents. This document is referred to as the First Amended Complaint (FAC) and will be referenced in further posts as the FAC.
The plaintiff also claimed that the hospital’s employees violated the hospitals own rules. In particular, they raise concerns about the documentation.
In addition to asserting that the screening exam was inadequate because it was done in a cost-conscious manner, the plaintiff also asserted that the patient was given substandard care because he was poor and had no insurance.
Another key element of EMTALA is the requirement to stabilize a patient once an emergency condition is discovered. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital did not stabilize the patient. A key element of this claim was that the response was too slow and the care was delivered in a delayed fashion.
Having reviewed these allegations, do you feel that they have merit? Continue to the next page to see the defense attorney’s response.