Law Essay Example: The Case of Violation of EMTALA Provisions

Section One: Facts

Holcomb, a key figure concerning the death of the late Barbara Jean, filed a complaint concerning the Huwana Medical Corporation with allegations that it had violated EMTALA provisions. The facility was accused of violating Anti-Patient Dumping Act thus contributing to the demise of Barbara Smith. On May 4, 1990, Barbara Smith outlined to the Huwana Hospital emergency practitioners that she had given birth lately and was suffering from extreme fever, sore throat, felt body aches and was coughing hysterically. It was found out that the patient portrayed to have a temperature of 104.3. On the other hand, her respiration was 32, blood pressure was alarming (112/64), and her pulse rate was 104.3. The medical analysis done on Barbara by Dr. Larry Abrams and prescription by Dr. Monahan portrayed that Barbara required to be given emergency treatment as she was suffering from a viral infection. Mrs. Barbara had an acute viral syndrome which necessitated the need for her to be placed in the ER and to be offered Tylenol and some IV fluids.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Dr. Monahan checked on Mrs. Barbara twice only and later officiated her release seven hours later. It is clear that the diagnosis was not extensively carried out thus leading to an early death of Barbara Smith. According to the actions of the emergency medical practitioners, it is clear that Huwana medical center did not violate Section 1395 dd (a) of the EMTALA which outlines that any patient in need of an emergency service should be given an "appropriate screening amid quick medical checkup."

Section Two: Issue

1. Did Mrs. Smith have an emergency condition according to the diagnosis results?
2. Did Human have the actual idea and knowledge of Mrs. Smith's condition?
3. Was it right for Huwana (Dr. Monahan) to release Mrs. Smith within such a short diagnosis and treatment time (7hrs) with the critical condition that she was admitted with?
4. Was the treatment given to Mrs. Barbara sufficient to justify that her condition was stable?

Section Three: The Rule, Laws, and Decisions of the Court

The court decided the case concerning Rule 56(c) which is part of the Federal Rules that control Civil procedures necessitate the need for the court to rule the case according to the summary outlined from the case presented by Huwana and Jackson Hospital. Since the complainant had no genuine evidence concerning the death of Mrs. Smith, the court had to rule according to the summary of the ways that the patient was treated and diagnosed.

Also, the court challenged the Plaintiff's argument that Huwana did not ensure that it carried out appropriate screening for the patient's illness. According to Section 1395dd(a), there is no redress designed by the provision of the section concerning appropriateness if screening so long as the hospital applied screening procedures as portrayed by the physical assessment of the patient. There was no single evidence that Huwana treated the in a manner that portray the approach was differently from the way other patients are treated.

The court focuses on the need for the plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence that Huwana knew of the medical emergency that Mrs. Barbara was in need of, but there was no evidence to prove the allegation of the plaintiff according to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395dd(b). The Section necessitate the need for the prosecution of the defendant if the plaintiff has evidence of the violation of the fact that the facility knew that the patient required emergency treatment. Additionally, the court focused on the undisputed fact that Mrs. Barbara outlined that she was feeling better and that the vital signs that made her be admitted had stabilized. For that matter, Huwana was entitled to summary judgment concerning the claims of Section 1395dd(b).

Section Four: The Court's Application of Possible Rules Concerning the Facts of the Case

The Disdtric Court affirmed its judgment. It relied on the fact that the plaintiff portrayed to have no sufficient evidence that Sec. 1395dd(a) had been violated and that Mrs. Barbara was treated with less effort than other patients in who visit the facility. Since EMTALA was created to protect patients and to ensure that all patients receive "adequate response for all medical crisis" as a basis for sending "clear signals to the hospital facility" regardless of race, gender or status.

According to Cleland v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., 917 F.2d266, 271 (6th Cir.1990), it is clear that the 6th Circuit made up a clear definition of the approaches towards determining if a facility carries out an "justifiable medical screening and examination." According to the provisions of the sixth circuit, patients should be given equal care to care approach sufficiently to minimize the incidents that some patients are given a service that is a laser to other patients. According to Section 1395dd(a) and the provisions of the Sixth Circuit, an individual is entitled to the same standards of screening plan that is accorded by a facility on other patients. Since EMTALA outlines that all patients should be provided with the equal opportunities and equitable service.

Section 1395dd(a) is not entitled to make a redress concerning an incorrect or inappropriate diagnosis that a facility is accused. The provision requires a medical facility to offer the same treatment concerning abolishing equitable care. It is clear that the emergency nature was not seen thus the facility could not be subjected to the charges of failing to make Mrs. Barbara's condition to stabilize completely.

The rules apply on the case since it was found out that Mrs. Smith was not denied a chance for "appropriate medical screening and examination" since the diagnosis and physical examination provided grounds for the treatment given to her. Humana Medical Corporation was favored by the judgment concerning the summary outlined by the pieces of evidence of practice on Mrs. Barbara.

Section Five: Conclusion

The court favored Humana Medical Center concerning the provisions of Sec. 1395dd(a) that necessitate the need for patients to be given equal treatment in healthcare facilities. The actions of the doctors on the condition of Mrs. Smith were justified to be ethically correct as there was no indication that the patient was under an emergency condition. Additionally, the fact that Mrs. Barbara outlined that her condition had stabilized proved that the facility was not to blame as Mrs. Barbara's consent was incorporated to officiate her discharge from Huwana medical Center. The outcome of the case was later subjected to a question for multiple reasons. For instance, lack of subject matter made the ruling to favor Huwana Medical center. The provisions of EMTALA that an emergency medical condition is a health condition that portrays to manifest itself by the severity of symptoms that depict an individual has severe pain.

References

831 F.Supp. 829 (1993). Rosie Nell HOLCOMB, as Administratrix of the Estate of Barbara Jean Smith, Deceased, v. HUMANA MEDICAL CORPORATION, INC., d/b/a Humana Hospital Montgomery. Civ. A. No. 92A522N. August 26, 1993.

Cleland v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., 917 F.2d266, 271 (6th Cir.1990).