Emergency Medical Condition Case Study

For this interaction myself and a nurse in the cardiac/pulm rehab had to make contact with a patients cardiologist. This patient is in rehab following cardiac surgery, he currently is wearing a zoll life vest due to frequent arrhythmias. While this patient was exercising he had recorded v-tach over 10 beats, however he was asymptomatic and his zoll vest did not activate. After making contact with the patients physician he advised us that he would make contact with the patient but he did not consider it a emergency in which the patient should go to the hospital because the v-tach was corrected without a

The doctor had a duty to treat the patient. This legal duty is established if the healthcare provider agrees to treat the patient. This must be established, as a doctor providing emergency care in a public place may not be guilty of malpractice.

There was no documentation dated after the procedure performed on August 28, 2014, or before the date of service billed in this appeal. The medical documentation did not highlight acute symptoms warranting the need for the service in question.

In this case, the Appellant provided verification from her eye doctor that showed additional medical conditions, not previously known to the Department. (Exhibit A-1) The ALJ finds that this new medical documentation may change the outcome of the Appellant’s eligibility for EMA. Although the Department did not have this information at the time of the denial, the Appellant was able to provide information that could change the Department’s decision of ineligibility.

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

The medical form was not totally in compliance with the “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), even though the claimant had a written notice there was no effort put forth in order to secure an approved medical authorization and

The patient went as far to admit that she currently is having a hard time breathing, but has an appointment with her gynecologist on Monday. This writer advised the patient that if she has difficulties breathing she will need to go to the ER immediately and be medically assessed by Nursing. The patient started crying about she does not want to be medically assessed as she needs to return her boyfriend vehicle so that he can work. This writer informed the patient about the seriousness of her health comes first. This writer called Nursing Chrystal, but no response. Then this writer and the patient went to the Nursing Director office to be medically assessed. According to the Nursing Director, she advised the patient to go to the ER first and will not be dosed today unless she provides proof of documentations of her visit. Again, the patient fussed and then says, " I am fine, it's not serious," however, the patient was advised to follow medical

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) does not prohibit the emergency medical provider from applying their professional judgment to withhold controlled substance treatment/prescriptions due to pain for ED patients without an emergency medical condition. However emergency room physicians are faced with throughput initiatives, patient satisfaction scores, and in fear of litigation, often times just write that controlled substance prescription to make the patient happy and to get them out of the ER.

Despite the best efforts to stay healthy, periodic problems with one’s health are an unavoidable part of life. While many of these injuries or illnesses will pass without problem even if untreated, every person will almost inevitably face the occasional health issue that demands attention. The appropriate response to this ailment may involve going to a hospital to consult a physician, and with this step, the situation can become very complicated, particularly for Americans.

EMTALA has strict requirements implemented upon emergency departments to evaluate all patients who request treatment but fails to include any method for how hospitals will be compensated for the care and services provided. Emergency departments make up a significant portion of the healthcare system

In this country patients cannot be turned away from receiving treatment due to legislation implemented by Congress in 1986 known as The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA is a non-discrimination statute which states “no patient who presents with an emergency medical condition, actual or perceived, and who is unable to pay may be treated differently than patients who are covered by health insurance” (CMS.gov, 2013, p. 1). The statute prevents hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to charity hospitals or county hospitals because they are uninsured or unable to pay for services. The ED provides care to uninsured patients (guaranteed through EMTALA) and for which it is never reimbursed (CMS.gov, 2013). Patients improperly assigned acuity levels tie up resources, lengthens the time in the ED, and increases unreimbursed costs to the emergency department. Inaccurate triage acuity levels can be costly (Gilboy et al., 2011; Bitterman, 2009). Providing the correct initial triage acuity levels decreases wait times and deterioration of a patient’s condition and, therefore, decreases

There was no indication in the article that care was withheld from Mr. Yu at any point in his illness (Roberts, 2012). Had the hospital denied Mr. Yu care when he presented with his initial condition, the hospital would have been in violation of EMTALA as Mr. Yu had an emergency medical condition that required emergent treatment, furthermore, it would have been highly

Patient is a 46 year old male who presented to the ED via LEO from Daymark for anxiety and depression over relationship issue, and financial issues.Patient reports a lot going on in his life right now and he went to Daymark seeking outpatient therapy. However, he was agitated that he was brought to the hospital for further evaluation. The patient reports that he was speaking with a worker at Daymark about his experience last year and was told to wait in the waiting room. The patient stated, " I fell like I was tricked into staying until the police came and brought me to the hospital. During the assessment the patient expressed that he has been feeling some anxiety, depressive symptoms, and aggression due to his situation. Further, the patient

Patient discharged 6/2/17 from the med team. Patient was noted to be noncompliant, refusing treatment, and post hospital care. Had been non-compliant with home care as well. Presented to the Emergency Department (6/7/17) with leg pain and weakness. There was a Medical Team evaluation with recommendation to discharge home. The patient apparently refused to go home. The Case was discussed with Dr. Ha. A second Med Team evaluation was completed with the same recommendation. Addition calls to Dr. Ha were placed. I was called around 11:30 PM (6/7/17) by Dr. Ha. She felt the main issue was the patient’s refusal to leave the Emergency Department.

The issue in this case is the lack of objective evidence to support the claimant’s disability allegations, and the failure to “fully evaluate the individuals impairments and prepare an assessment form that could be used for future CDRs. The current adjudicator failed to follow procedures as outlined in DI 28035.010 regarding medical or vocational development.”