Arrington

Arrington v. Wong

Good Law
237 F.3d 1066·2000 WL 33121741
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 22, 2001No. 98-17135California5,764 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.

We are required on this appeal to construe the language of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, as implemented by 42 C.F.R. § 489.24 . EM-TALA prevents transfers, without stabilizing treatment, of patients who “come to” a hospital’s emergency room. The complaint alleges that: (1) decedent Harold E. Arrington suffered a heart attack on his way to work; (2) in the ambulance, on the way to the Queen’s Medical Center (Queen’s hospital), the emergency personnel radioed ahead to advise the hospital’s emergency room of their imminent arrival; (3) Dr. Norbert Wong, the emergency room doctor on duty, redirected the ambulance to a different hospital five miles away from Queen’s; and (4) Mr. Arrington died soon after arrival at the more distant hospital. The issue before us is whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim under EMTALA on the basis of the defendants’ failure to provide emergency treatment to Mr. Arrington.

I. Background

On May 5, 1996, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Harold Arrington (Arrington) was *1069 driving to his job as a security guard when he experienced…

Dissenting Opinion

Fernandez, J.

Dissenting:

As the majority indicates, the Estate of Harold E. Arrington and a number of family members (collectively “the Estate”) brought this action against the Queen’s Medical Center, Dr. Norbert Wong, the City and County of Honolulu, Clarence Uyema, and Jerry Ho. The district court dismissed the portion of the action against Queen’s which was based on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. It held that the Act did not apply. It then dismissed the remaining supplemental state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c).

If Queen’s violated the substantive provisions of EMTALA, any person harmed thereby could sue it for damages for personal injuries. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A). 1 Our task, therefore, is *1075 to decide whether Queen’s did violate EM-TALA’s requirement that “if any individual ... comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a). More specifically, we must decide if…

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.