EMTALA/Medical Malpractice

Hammonds v. Jewish Hosp., 899 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

Key issues - Who is in charge and who is vicariously liable?

What did the trial court do?

When and where did plaintiff first seek medical care?

What was her condition and why was she worried?

Why did Jewish want to transfer her to City Hospital?

Who called Jewish?

Why did she call before transferring the patient?

Who did she speak to at City and what was her position?

Who did she say had to approve the transfer?

Where was Defendant when she got this call?

When did Defendant first exercise medical judgment as to Plaintiff?

What is the timeline for Plaintiff once she arrived at City Hospital?

What did Defendant do when she first arrived from home?

When did she inquire about Plaintiff and what did she learn?

What had Jewish done in the meantime?

Does Jewish have an EMTALA problem?

What was the result when she arrived at Jewish?

Did she get the drug that Defendant prescribed?

How would you argue pro and con on how this affects the physician patient relationship with Plaintiff?

What is the critical damage issue?

Where was she put when she arrived at City?

Who diagnosed her medical emergency?

How long was the delay?

When did Defendant see Plaintiff?

What was Defendant's ground for summary judgment?

.[material ommited about standards for reviewing summary judgments]

What does Plaintiff have to show to defeat the summary judgment?

What did the court say about Dube's conduct?

How would you try to get to Defendant through Dube?

What was the relationship between Dube and Defendant?

What did Dube do wrong?

What was Defendant's negligence in supervising Dube?

Why would the call to Jewish have changed the result?

What was the dissent's concern about the physician patient relationship?

What was the basis for the physician-patient relationship in Hiser?

What about in Dillon?

What about Podvin?

How did the dissent distinguish the instant case from these precedent case?

Is this what really happened?

What if they had dumped the patient and not called?

What if she had been a walkin?

Wouldn't defendant have been liable anyway for lousy supervision?

Note the Bienz case: It is the only case I have found that turns solely on phone advice.

How do you argue that there is a physician-patient relationship in this case based on supervising the resident?