Opinion ID: 203996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EMTALA Claims Against the Physicians

Text: In its Summary Judgment order, the district court stated that [p]laintiffs bring their EMTALA claims not only against Ryder but also against individual physicians. The court then dismissed these claims on the grounds that EMTALA applies only to participating hospitals. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the court wrongly characterized their claims against the physicians who treated Martínez, and suggest that these claims are based on Puerto Rico law. We agree that plaintiffs' claims against Drs. Pastrana, Ortíz-Kidd, Gómez López, and Cannetti, as reflected in the Second Amended Complaint, are based, at least in part, on Puerto Rico law. Nevertheless, the district court also dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' state law claims against defendants, which plainly includes state-law claims against the individual physicians. The district court was entitled to do this. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).