Filed: Jun. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 102 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on July 6, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. Defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims under the Emergency Medical Treat
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 102 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on July 6, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. Defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims under the Emergency Medical Treatm..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 102
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on July 6, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Defendant contends that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate either a failure to screen or a failure to stabilize Ms. Gutierrez. Defendant asserts that the evidence in the record shows that the hospital and its staff conducted an adequate screening through the administration of various tests, and that Ms. Gutierrez was stablilized for all conditions for which she had been diagnosed at the time of her discharge.
Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment and contend that they have submitted evidence raising a material question of fact on the EMTALA claims. The Court agrees, and accordingly DENIES summary judgment. Plaintiffs have submitted, inter alia, two expert reports in which the experts opine that, in light of Ms. Gutierrez's medical history, symptoms, and test results, Ms. Gutierrez was provided a cursory screening that was not appropriate to determine whether various emergency medical conditions existed. The experts also opine that hospital staff failed to stabilize Ms. Gutierrez's emergency medical conditions prior to discharge, including a condition that had been detected during that emergency room visit ("Findings suggest fluid overload with congestive failure"; Pls' Evid., Ex. 2 at 6267). Although defendant raises some well-founded objections to these declarations, such as the fact that they contain some impermissible legal conclusions, the Court finds that the admissible portions of the declarations, as well as the supporting medical records, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the EMTALA claims.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
