Lear v. Genesee Memorial Hosp.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1998
• Citation: 678 N.Y.S.2d 228,254 A.D.2d 707
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8342 Cynthia L. LEAR, as Co-Administratrix of the Estate of Harold L. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, v. GENESEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 228

678 N.Y.S.2d 228

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8342

Cynthia L. LEAR, as Co-Administratrix of the Estate of Harold L. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, v. GENESEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Oct. 2, 1998.

Damon & Morey, L.L.P. by Amy Flaherty, Buffalo, for Appellant.

Hamsher & Valentine by Richard Valentine, Buffalo, for Respondent.

Present: GREEN, J.P., LAWTON, HAYES, PIGOTT and CALLAHAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Genesee Memorial Hospital (Hospital) for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action. The record establishes that plaintiff's decedent came to the Hospital's emergency department and, after being examined by Hospital employees, was admitted to the Hospital under the care of his private attending physician. Six days later, decedent was discharged from the Hospital pursuant to the order of his physician.

The third cause of action alleges that the Hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd) by discharging decedent without first having stabilized his emergency medical condition (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd [b] ) or, in the alternative, that the Hospital failed to provide a transfer in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (c). The fourth cause of action alleges that the Hospital violated EMTALA by failing to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (c) when transferring decedent.

The purpose of EMTALA is to combat "patient dumping" by hospitals based on a patient's financial condition or lack of health insurance (see, DiGicomo v. St. Joseph's Hosp. & Health Ctr., 182 A.D.2d 1106, 582 N.Y.S.2d 887). "A patient is 'dumped' when he or she is shunted off by one hospital to another, the second one being, for example, a so-called 'charity institution' " (Summers v. Baptist Med. Ctr. Arkadelphia, 91 F.3d 1132, 1136 [8th Cir.1996] ). Pursuant to EMTALA, a hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening examination of an individual presented to the hospital's emergency medical department to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd [a] ). Upon determining that an emergency medical condition exists, the hospital must provide for such further medical examination and such treatment as is required to stabilize the condition (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd [b][1][A]; see, Vickers v Nash Gen. Hosp., 78 F.3d 139, 142 [4th Cir.1996] ). "EMTALA is not a federal malpractice statute * * *; claims of misdiagnosis or inadequate treatment are left to the state malpractice arena" (Summers v. Baptist Med. Ctr. Arkadelphia, supra, at 1137). EMTALA does not protect a patient from improper diagnosis or treatment; rather, it "create [s] a new cause of action, generally unavailable under state tort law, for what amounts to failure to treat" (Gatewood v. Washington Healthcare...