Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:34:45.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EMTALA: Screening Can Satisfy EMTALA, Despite Misdiagnosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Hemanth Gundavaram
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a hospital fulfills its statutory duty to screen patiens in is emergency room if it provides for a “screening examination reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions” that may be afflicting symptomatic patients and if it “provides that level of screening uniformly to all those who present substantially similar complaints.” The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the hospital in a claim raised under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

Maria del Carmen Guadalupe brought her husband, Narciso Figueroa, to the Hospital Interamericano De Medicina Avanzada, Inc., (HIMA) on October 3, 1998, with symptoms of urinary retention, edema in the legs, high blood pressure, pain, increased respiratory difficulty, a dry cough, fever, and drowsiness.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 2003 , pp. 169 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, 299 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Id. at 20 (quoting Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1192 (1st Cir. 1995)).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2003).Google Scholar
See Del Carmen Guadalupe, 299 F.3d at 17–18.Google Scholar
Id. at 18.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Carmen Guadalupe, 299 F.3d at 18.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting a report of Dr. David R. Nateman, medical director of the Emergency Services Department of the Baptist Hospital of Miami, which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 19 (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) (2003)).Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) (2003).Google Scholar
Correa, 69 F.3d at 1192.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Del Carmen Guadalupe, 299 F.3d at 21.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 21–22.Google Scholar
Id. at 22.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 22–23.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b) (2003).Google Scholar
See Del Carmen Guadalupe, 299 F.3d at 23.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b)(1) (2003)).Google Scholar
See id. at 21.Google Scholar