In plaintiffs’ case against a hospital and doctors under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) 42 U.S.C. section 1395dd, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the type of plaintiff’s routine hospital visits for pregnancy and her status as a outpatient does not trigger EMTALA; and 2) plaintiffs’ evidence was not sufficient to raise a disputed issue with respect to a stabilization claim.
Read Torretti v. Main Line Hosps., Inc., No. 08-1525
Appellate Information
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-03003)
District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez
Argued January 28, 2009Opinion Filed September 2, 2009
Judges
Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro, and Smith, Circuit Judges Opinion by Circuit Judge Ambro
Counsel
Counsel for Appellant: Barbara R. Axelrod, James E. Beasley, Jr., Dion G. Rassias,
Counsel for Appellee: Daniel F. Ryan, III, O’Brien & Ryan, Peter J. Hoffman, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
