Court Opinion

ID: 9632283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:08:22.408282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:12.030547
License: Public Domain

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. By remaining loyal to the errant obiter dictum contained in Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir.1990), the majority has perpetuated a serious conflict between our circuit and the Ninth Circuit, Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys., 289 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2002), the Fourth Circuit, Bryan v. Rectors and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 95 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 1996), the federal regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i), and the vast majority of lower court decisions. See generally Preston v. Meriter Hosp., Inc., 307 Wis.2d 704, 747 N.W.2d 173 (2008), petition for review denied, 308 Wis.2d 611, 749 N.W.2d 662 (2008), and cases cited therein.
At issue is the construction of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Contrary to the federal regulations and the weight of authority, a panel of this court in Moses held that federal law imposes a duty on hospitals that accept Medicare funding to adequately stabilize a patient after the hospital has satisfied its emergency room obligations by either transferring the individual or admitting him for in-patient care. Our panel decision misconstrues EMTALA, making it a general federal medical malpractice statute, rather than an act limited to emergency room screening and stabilization. Bryan, 95 F.3d at 351.
For these reasons, I would grant rehearing en banc and therefore respectfully dissent.