Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Understanding EMTALA and the Courts

By Jennifer A. Stiller
January 01, 2004

Because many attorneys who handle professional liability cases are not also involved in cases challenging government regulations, they may not be familiar with the weight that the courts often give to regulations and regulatory preambles such as those discussed in last month's article on the new Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) regulations. This article should aid in filling any such gaps in the attorney's experience.

EMTALA is a part of the Medicare title of the Social Security Act, and Medicare is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd; see generally 42 U.S.C. '1395 et seq. EMTALA is enforced in two ways — by CMS and by private causes of action. CMS may impose a hefty civil monetary penalty on a hospital or physician that violates the act's requirements. 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd(d)(1). In particularly egregious cases, the agency may terminate a physician or hospital's right to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 42 U.S.C. '' 1395dd(d)(1)(B), 1395cc(b)(2)(A). As discussed in last month's newsletter, CMS has issued comprehensive regulations interpreting EMTALA's requirements. See 42 C.F.R. ' 189.24, 68 Fed. Reg. 53222 (Sept. 9, 2003).

Private causes of action can be brought against hospitals by two kinds of parties: by any “individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result” of the hospital's violation of EMTALA; or by any “medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result” of a hospital's violation of EMTALA. 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd(d)(2)(A), (B). In either case, the plaintiff may “obtain those damages available for” personal injury or financial loss (as the case may be) “under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.” Id. The statute of limitations is 2 years. 42 U.S.C. ' 1395dd(d)(2)(C).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?