Kilcup

Kilcup v. Adventist Health, Inc.

Good Law
57 F. Supp. 2d 925·1999 WL 553348
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1999C 97-1207 JLCalifornia3,482 words

Opinion

Opinion

Larson, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ EMTALA CLAIMS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNTER MOTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Redbud Community Hospital District (“Redbud”) and Adventist Health Care (“Adventist”) filed motions for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd et seq., the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, (“EMTALA”). Plaintiffs filed a Counter Motion for partial summary judgment against Redbud and Adventist, as well as Janzen, Johnston & Rockwell (“JJ & R”), and Dr. Jose Sanchez. This Court had previously heard the motions of all Defendants for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims under California medical malpractice law and had issued a tentative ruling granting those motions as to all Defendants. This Court informed Redbud and Adventist, however, that it would not grant summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ causes of action under the federal EMTALA statute, since the issues were separate and distinct from the issues in the claims related to alleged medical malpractice. A hearing was held on the Defendants’ motions and Plaintiffs’ counter-motions on April 14, 1999. Appearing for Plaintiffs was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.