Appellate Law

CA1: EMTALA covers people that are almost at the hospital

By S. COTUS

Morales v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo et al, No. 07-1951 (4/18/08) holds that for purposes of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, ?an individual can come to the emergency department for EMTALA purposes without physically arriving on the hospital's grounds as long as the individual is en route to the hospital and the emergency department has been notified of her imminent arrival.? See also the regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(b)(4) (2003).  While the statute and regulation is vague, Selya ends up looking at what he perceives to be statutory intent. A very clear statement from Selya.

The facts of this case are really disturbing. A woman was having an nonviable ectopic pregnancy, but, amongst other things, when she reported pains and was being transported to the emergency room by ambulance, her doctor hung up on the paramedics when they couldn?t assure him that she had insurance. The frustrated paramedics went to a different hospital. 

I guess the only interesting thing about this is that Selya says that canons of statutory construction should be applied to regulations. However, since canons are applied whenever the court wants them to be, I don?t really know where that gets us.

In an odd turn of events, Torruella dissents saying that the statute is clear, and that ?comes? means ?arrives? and she had not ?arrived.?

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on April 20, 2008 (boomark / email).