Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that “[t]he patient is to be brought directly to a room if one is available” and that “[t]hey are not intended to delay physician evaluation.” The Triage Guidelines were clearly intended to allow a nurse to initiate testing before a physician’s examination; they did not apply when a patient saw a doctor promptly and did not specify specific steps for the doctor to follow when he or she saw a patient. T was undisputably able to see a doctor promptly, he saw Haynes twenty minutes after he arrived in the emergency room. Even if we accept the Guzmans’ argument that the Triage Guidelines were part of Memorial’s screening policy, Memorial could not have violated the Triage Guidelines because they did not apply to T. Cf. Fraticelli-Torres v. Hosp. Hermanos, 300 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (1st Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The Guzmans did not raise a genuine issue of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala (B) holding that hospital did not violate emtala by failing to follow a thrombolysis protocol because by its very terms the protocol was not expressly applicable to patients in the er (C) holding that emtala applies to any and all patients (D) holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed (E) holding that because the contract between the hospital and the health insurance company had a hold harmless provision which stated the hospital would not bill or hold insurance subscribers liable for any hospital expenses covered by the subscribers insurance contract and all expenses from the patients treatment for the automobile accident were covered in such contract there was no debt upon which the hospital could assert a lien pursuant to the states hospital lien statute
Output (English): holding that because the contract between the hospital and the health insurance company had a hold harmless provision which stated the hospital would not bill or hold insurance subscribers liable for any hospital expenses covered by the subscribers insurance contract and all expenses from the patients treatment for the automobile accident were covered in such contract there was no debt upon which the hospital could assert a lien pursuant to the states hospital lien statute