Patient Dumping

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

Since the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of M’s appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling on the matter in 2010, which means the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and the $18.5 million judgment against M.

Since the development of the EMTALA Act in 1986, any individual which presents to the emergency department, must be accessed and triaged by qualified medical personnel. (www.cms.gov) Individuals are aware that if they present to the emergency department, regardless if it is for just a tooth ache or a major illness like a heart attack, they will have to be treated. “This mandate does not extend to private physician offices, however, which creates an incentive for those without the means to pay for care to

In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted. The federal government enacted the law to provide everyone with access to emergency medical care, even for those unable to pay. EMTALA declared that any individual who enters a “qualifying hospital” is entitled to an “appropriate” medical examination to determine if an “emergency medical condition” is present. The individual cannot be “transferred” until the “emergency medical condition” is “stabilized.” Only if the individual cannot be “stabilized,” an “appropriate transfer” may be performed. Hospitals must accept

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted in 1986 as a part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985. EMTALA was enacted to prevent hospitals with Emergency Departments from refusing to treat or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions (EMC) due to an inability to pay for their services. This act also applies to satellite locations whom advertise titles such as “Immediate Care” or “Urgent Care,” and all other facilities where one-third of their patient intake are walk-ins. Several rules and regulations to this act have been established and it has become a very serious piece of legislation and health

Nature of Case: The District Court condemned Antoine Jones of previous drug crimes. The defendant asked for an appeal and then then it headed D.C. Circuit of Appeals which they ended up reversing the condemnation. They stated that the no warrant use of the GPS violated the fourth amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review order of a higher court from previous court decision).

The appellate court reversed the rule by the trial court concluding that Plaintiff fraudulently induced Iva

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

(TCO 1) How could a hospital legally avoid being covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)?

Allied Medical Waste Tracking Inc. was started to solve the problem of the dangers of improper disposal of medical waste. The intention of the company was clear and the results were supported by the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988. This act demanded that all health institutions find a way to dispose of their medical waste. The consequences for failing to comply were fines imposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Medical facilities were required to have a way of managing infectious waste. Some standards were put in place to make sure that the facilities did not compromise the well being of the environment. There are impacts on human health and the

The rising costs of unpaid emergency room expenditures were an issue that had to be addressed by state authorities. EMTALA required that all persons be treated, however, it did not include any legislation to reimburse payment that left hospital left with unpaid bills and growing expenses.

“Hospitals are not only required to care for emergency patients, but they also are required to do so in a timely fashion” (Pozgar, 2010, p. 272). “Hospitals are expected to notify specialty on-call physicians when their particular skills are required in the emergency department. An on-call physician who fails to respond to a request to attend a patient can be liable for injuries suffered by the patient because of his or her failure to respond” (Pozgar, 2010, p. 271). Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, hospitals are also liable for the actions of physicians working or on-call in their emergency department.