Brief Fact Summary. Baber (Plaintiff) brought a suit against Raleigh General Hospital (RGH) (Defendant) claiming violations of the requirements of EMTALA when her sister was treated and died after she fell in the emergency room and struck her head while having a convulsion.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When determining whether an emergency medical condition exists, a hospital is required to provide a medical screening examination that is appropriate and within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.
Moreover, once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with some evidence beyond the mere allegations contained in the pleadings to show there is a genuine issue for trial.
View Full Point of LawIssue. When determining whether an emergency medical condition exists, is a hospital required to provide a medical screening examination that is appropriate and within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department?
Held. (Williams, J.) Yes. When determining whether an emergency medical condition exists, a hospital is required to provide a medical screening examination that is appropriate and within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department. The purpose of the screening examination is to determine whether a patient with acute or severe symptoms has a life-threatening or serious medical condition. While EMTALA does require a hospital emergency department to apply its standard uniformly, it does not guarantee that emergency personnel will diagnose a patient’s condition correctly as a result of the screening. While Ms. Baber did exhibit some of the signs and symptoms of patients with severe head injuries, the treating doctor did not believe she was suffering from an emergency medical situation and thought her condition to be stable prior to transfer. Therefore, he determined that a CT scan or x-rays were not needed at that time. Although his assessment and judgment may have been in error, the screening examination was not so substandard that it amounted to no examination. Affirmed.
Discussion. Plaintiff also claimed that RGH (Defendant) inappropriately transferred his sister to the psychiatric hospital. In order to recover for violations of EMTALA’s transfer provisions, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the patient had an emergency medical condition; (2) the hospital knew of the condition; (3) the patient was not stabilized before the transfer; and (4) the hospital did not follow appropriate procedures for transfer. In this case, Plaintiff presented no evidence beyond his own belief that his sister had an emergency condition or that the hospital was aware of it.