Court Opinion

ID: 2965002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:00.658207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:24.251300
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1862

                         ESTATE OF JENNIE E. PREVETT, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                            BETTY ANN COHEN, DR., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter D. Prevett on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Pamela S.  Gilman, Jennifer Ellis  Burke and Taylor, Duane, Barton
            _________________  _____________________     _____________________
        & Gilman, LLP on brief for appellee, Betty Ann Cohen, M.D.
        _____________
            Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Wilson D. Rogers,  III and Dunn and Rogers,
            _____________________  ______________________     ________________
        P.C.  on brief  for appellees,  Richard NG,  M.D. and  St. Elizabeth's
        ____
        Medical Center of Boston, Inc.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 10, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the parties' briefs
                 ___________

            and the appellate  record, we reject plaintiffs'  contentions

            that the district court misinterpreted the  Emergency Medical

            Treatment and Active Labor Act  (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C.   1395dd,

            and  applied an  incorrect  standard under  Fed.  R. Civ.  P.

            12(b)(6).    Substantially  for  the  reasons  given  in  the

            district  court  order  dated  June  30,  1997,  the  amended

            complaint failed to state  an EMTALA claim upon which  relief

            could be granted, even though the complaint nominally invoked

            EMTALA.  See Vickers v.  Nash General Hospital, Inc., 78 F.3d
                     ___ _______     ___________________________

            139, 143-44 (4th Cir. 1996). 

                 We   make  no  comment  on  the  merits  of  plaintiffs'

            remaining state law claims.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-