Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02645/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02645-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02645-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL 

HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 102

Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for 

a hearing on July 6, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this 

matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims under the Emergency 

Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Defendant 

contends that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate either a failure to screen or a failure to stabilize Ms. 

Gutierrez. Defendant asserts that the evidence in the record shows that the hospital and its staff 

conducted an adequate screening through the administration of various tests, and that Ms. 

Gutierrez was stablilized for all conditions for which she had been diagnosed at the time of her 

discharge. 

Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment and contend that they have submitted evidence 

raising a material question of fact on the EMTALA claims. The Court agrees, and accordingly 

DENIES summary judgment. Plaintiffs have submitted, inter alia, two expert reports in which the 

experts opine that, in light of Ms. Gutierrez’s medical history, symptoms, and test results, Ms. 

Gutierrez was provided a cursory screening that was not appropriate to determine whether various 

emergency medical conditions existed. The experts also opine that hospital staff failed to stabilize 

Case 3:16-cv-02645-SI Document 103 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ms. Gutierrez’s emergency medical conditions prior to discharge, including a condition that had 

been detected during that emergency room visit (“Findings suggest fluid overload with congestive 

failure”; Pls’ Evid., Ex. 2 at 6267). Although defendant raises some well-founded objections to 

these declarations, such as the fact that they contain some impermissible legal conclusions, the 

Court finds that the admissible portions of the declarations, as well as the supporting medical 

records, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the EMTALA claims.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2018 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 Defendant argues that the expert declarations are similar to those that the court found 

inadmissible and irrelevant in Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

However, in Hoffman the court held that the plaintiff’s expert declarations were deficient because 

the experts did not explain why the screening provided was cursory or inadequate, and instead the 

experts discussed how the screening provided deviated from the standard of care, an inquiry more 

relevant to medical malpractice rather than EMTALA. In this case, the plaintiffs’ experts do 

address why they think the screening provided was cursory or inadequate, and they do not frame 

this discussion in the context of a “standard of care.” See, e.g., Shalit Decl. ¶ 5; Taylor Report at 

4-5.

Case 3:16-cv-02645-SI Document 103 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 2