|
IF NO RECOVERY - NO FEE OR EXPENSES |
CALL US |
|
|
|
WE ACCEPT MALPRACTICE CASES ALL OVER FLORIDA |
|
|
|
THE OVERLOOKED EMERGENCY ROOM CAUSE OF ACTION |
![]()
(The information on this site applies to Florida only)
This article was written by Scott R. McMillen and first published in the Florida Bar Journal in November, 1997.
The Overlooked Emergency
Room Cause of Action
Section 395.1041, Florida Statutes
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Footnotes
Part 2
The Remedy
In addition to setting out
these duties of examination and treatment, 395.1041, like EMTALA, also expressly
creates a statutory private right of action for any person harmed as a result of
the failure to fulfill these obligations. Specifically, 395.1041(5)(b) states:
(b) Any person who suffers personal harm as a result of a violation of this
section or the rules adopted hereunder may recover, in a civil action against
the responsible hospital administrative or medical staff or personnel, damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief. However, this
paragraph shall not be construed to create a cause of action beyond that
recognized by this section and rules adopted under this section as they existed
on April 1, 1992.10
Application to Malpractice Claim
In an often repeated malpractice case scenario, a
patient comes into an emergency room complaining of significant chest and
shoulder pain but after an examination is sent home with a diagnosis of
indigestion and possible reflux. Three days later the patient is dead, with an
autopsy finding of a three day old heart attack that would have been treatable
with an earlier diagnosis. This patient certainly had an "emergency medical
condition" (admittedly known only in hindsight), for which the patient
sought treatment. It is also clear the patient did not receive a "medical
screening, examination, and evaluation" to determine that this condition
existed, nor did the patient receive the "care, treatment, or surgery
necessary to relieve or eliminate the condition," and this resulted in
personal harm. What could be simpler?
But Malpractice Isn't "Dumping"
Any attempt by a patient's lawyer to combine a
cause of action under 395.1041 with a garden variety emergency room malpractice
claim will undoubtedly be met by numerous defenses. The first reaction will
likely be an argument that 395.1041 was only intended by the Legislature to
create a cause of action in those instances where the patient is discriminated
against because the patient is indigent or uninsured. There is some indication
in the legislative committee reports that treatment and transfer decisions based
on economics were one of the Legislature's primary concerns in enacting
395.1041.11 However, under applicable rules of statutory construction the court
is not permitted to look outside the language of a statute for legislative
intent, unless the court first finds the language of the statute to be
ambiguous.12 Even if a court were to believe that the Legislature meant to say
something else, rules of statutory construction would not allow the court to
rewrite an otherwise unambiguous statute for the Legislature.13
Section 395.1041 contains no ambiguity as to its scope,
and it does not mention the phrase "patient dumping" at all. The
statute authorizes a civil cause of action to be brought by "any
person" who has suffered "personal harm" as a result of a
violation of the provisions of the statute. Neither the duty to examine, nor the
duty to treat, is limited to poor or uninsured people. The language creating the
private civil cause of action likewise contains no such words of limitation,
although certainly economic discrimination would also be actionable if that were
the reason for the failure to provide emergency care and services to someone
with an emergency medical condition.
Regardless of any rules of statutory construction, the primary reason it would
be inappropriate to look outside of the statute to decide what the Legislature
had in mind, is that the statute itself contains direct expressions of the
Legislature's intentions, which even come with the label "legislative
intent". First, there is a specific reference to the legislative intent for
all of Chapter 395, in 395.001 which states:
395.001 Legislative intent. - - It is the intent of the Legislature to provide
for the protection of public health and safety in the establishment,
construction, maintenance, and operation of hospitals and ambulatory surgical
centers by providing for licensure of same and for the development,
establishment, and enforcement of minimum standards with respect thereto.
This language evidences a broad legislative intent to protect the
public health by establishing minimum standards in the operation of hospitals.
Nothing in the statement of legislative intent restricts the application of
these laws for the protection of the health of only the poor or uninsured. More
importantly though, there is a statement of legislative intent specific to
Section 395.1041. It is contained in the first sub-section and states:
395.1041 Access to emergency services and care.
(1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT. - - The Legislature finds and declares it to be of vital
importance that emergency services and care be provided by hospitals and
physicians to every person in need of such care. The Legislature finds
that persons have been denied emergency services and care by hospitals. It is
the intent of the Legislature that the agency vigorously enforce the ability of
persons to receive all necessary and appropriate emergency services and care and
that the agency act in a thorough and timely manner against hospitals and
physicians which deny persons emergency services and care. It is further the
intent of the Legislature that hospitals, emergency medical services providers,
and other health care providers work together in their local communities to
enter into agreements or arrangements to ensure access to emergency services and
care. The Legislature further recognizes that appropriate emergency services and
care often require follow-up consultation and treatment in order to effectively
care for emergency medical conditions. [emphasis supplied]
This language states in plain words a legislative intent that "emergency
services and care" be provided to "every person" in need of such
care, not just every poor or uninsured person. If it was the Legislature's
intent to limit this section exclusively to indigent or uninsured persons, it
easily could have said so by stating "The Legislature finds that people are
being denied access to emergency care for financial reasons, and the intent of
this statute is to prevent such conduct."
Because of differences in the language of EMTALA and 395.1041, reliance on cases
decided under the federal statute should be done cautiously. It must be pointed
out, however, that even under EMTALA, every federal Circuit Court of Appeals to
have addressed the issue has ruled that whether a patient is indigent or carries
health insurance is immaterial when a patient brings a claim under the federal
act; all patients are protected.14 These federal courts reached this conclusion
because EMTALA in plain words creates a cause of action on behalf of "any
individual". Section 395.1041 creates a cause of action on behalf of
"any person". It is unlikely the state courts of Florida will read
"any person" to mean "any person discriminated against on the
basis of indigency or lack of insurance."
Part
1 Part 2
Part
3 Footnotes
|
|
This site contains only general background information and is not intended to constitute specific legal advice or establish an attorney/client relationship. Malpractice laws vary from state to state and are constantly changing. If you think you may have a malpractice case you should promptly contact a lawyer in your state with experience in handling malpractice cases. |
|
Copyright 1997-2010 - McMillen
Law Firm * A Professional Association |
|
MALPRACTICE QUESTIONS | LOOK UP DOCTORS | DO I HAVE A GOOD CASE? | STATUTES |
|
CASE REPORTS | NURSING HOMES | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP |