Court Opinion

ID: 9671812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:35.502959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.176673
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 43. {concurring). While I join the majority opinion, I write to address that portion of the dissent that addresses the issue of whether or not Bridón was an inpatient for purposes of EMTALA.
¶ 44. The majority did not address that issue. See majority op., ¶ 39 n.12. While the dissent suggests a roadmap for such a determination, it is merely the opinion of one justice. The issue of whether á newborn infant is considered an inpatient upon his or her mother's admission to a hospital has yet to be determined by this, or to our knowledge any other, court. The question is complicated further by the circumstances of this case, in which the hospital never intended to, nor did it, provide any treatment to Bridón. As the court of appeals' decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, the parties should fully brief this issue for the circuit court's consideration.
*291¶ 45. For the above stated reason, I respectfully concur.
¶ 46. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON and Justices ANN WALSH BRADLEY and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. join this concurrence.