Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit
No. 04-1555 HEIRS OF JUAN MILETE MEDERO ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. HOSPITAL DR. SUSONI, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________ AM CARE, INC. AND RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Selya, Circuit Judge , Coffin and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges . Héctor J. Benítez Arraiza and Llovet Zurinaga & López, P.S.C. on brief for appellants.
December 3, 2004-2- PerCuriam . Juan Milete Medero (Milete) arrived at Hospital Dr. Susoni, Inc. (HDS) complaining of chest pain. A batteryof tests were performed in the emergency room and Milete was then discharged. He died a few days later.

Milete's heirs brought suit in the federal district court against HDS, AM Care (a firm that allegedly managed the emergency room), and their respective insurers. The gravamen of the action
was the allegation that HDS and/or AM Care failed to perform adequa te scr eening, neglected to stabilize the decedent, and prematurelydischarg ed h im in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2003). The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint. In due course, the district court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by HDS and its insurer (St. Paul Fi re & Mari ne Insurance Co.). The court dismissed the action with prejudice as to all the defendants.

The plaintiffs appealed. While their appeal was pending, the plaintiffs, HDS, and St. Paul negotiated a settlement. The terms of the settlement are obscure, and th e p arties apparently disagree as to whether the settlement abrogated the plaintiffs' claims again st AM Care and its insurer (Reliance Insurance Co.). In consequence of the settle ment, we entered an order dismissing the appeal vis-à- vis HDS an d St. Paul. Appellate courts lack a mechanism for factfinding, however, and the dispute as to whether1 The district court noted this question and directed the

parties to brief it. After receiving the parties' memoranda, the court never resolved the question. -3- the settlement has a broader reach remains unresolved. The plaintiffs' appeal is still pending as to AM Care and Reliance.

The plaintiffs desire to press forward with what remains of their appeal. AM Care and Reliance, apparently believing that the claims against them were extinguished by the settlement, have not filed a brief. To complicate matters, the plaintiffs' brief, filed prior to the consummation of the settlement, addresses only the claims against HDS and St. Paul. It does not spec ifically address the more nuanced claims advanced against AM Car e and Reliance. We say "more nuanced" because it is unclear whether AM Care — a non-hospital health care provider — is a proper defendant under EMTALA. 1

In the present posture of the case, we think that the
course of prudence is summarily to vacate the judgment below as to AMCare and its ins urer and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). On r ema nd, the district court first should explore the scope of the settlement and determine whether it extinguished the plaintiffs' claims against AM Care and its insurer. If so , the court should dismiss the remaining claims on that ground.

If, however, the claims against AM Care and its insurer survive the settlement, the court shouldthen resolve the statutory-4-

c onstruction question, namely, whether EMTALA applies to non
hospital providers like AM Care. If the court answers that query affirmatively, it next should proceedto address the EMTALA claims
on the merits and enter judgment according ly. But if the court
answers the statutory construction question in the negative, it should dismiss the claims against AM Care and its insurer without prejudice for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

We add two caveats. First, our vacation of the judgment neither applies to HDS and St. Paul nor affects the earlier order dismissing the appeal as to those parties. That aspect of the case is finished. Second, we intimate no view as to the ultimate resolution of any of the issues that m ust be vetted on remand. Having mapped the terrain, we need go no further.

Vacated and remanded . All parties shall bear their own costs .