A legal right that is present within all healthcare organizations and is presented by law is one called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) which was created in 1986. EMTALA requires all hospital emergency departments to treat and provide medical screening to anyone suffering or believed to be suffering a medical emergency despite insurance status. According to Levy (2018), this act was initiated and concluded that all hospitals must provide free treatment to non-Medicare patients suffering emergency medical conditions, this reports that they cannot transfer them to other hospitals without good cause or send them away. There are three main components to EMTALA; 1. An individual who comes and requests a medical screening has the right to receive to determine if a medical condition exists, 2. if there is an emergency medical condition present it must be treated until resolved or stabilized, 3. hospitals with specialized capacities are obligated to accept transfers
from those who lack these capabilities (ACEP, 2022). Therefore, the patient has a legal right to receive screening and treatment in an emergency department at any given time for any reason, this includes testing, imaging, treatments and a diagnosis, in which they are entitled to receive copies of their medical records if they wish along with consultations to specialty providers if the case warrants. The health care organization is obligated to provide these services to every client despite financial status or insurance availability.
Case A – EMTALA #2
The law of EMTALA was presented in this case as a claim against a hospital in which the plaintiff argues this law was breeched. Ms. Power’s presented to the emergency department complaining of back pain that radiates to her hip and down into her leg, she was seen by a nurse and evaluated by a doctor, she had x-rays performed and a urinalysis in which the doctor concluded this was likely related to musculoskeletal issues, she was given medication and discharged home with follow up with an orthopedic specialist. Ms. Powers returned to the hospital the following evening with the same complaint and it was reported that she was
critically unstable, she was found to have septic shock and was ultimately transferred to Central Middlesex Hospital in London, England where she spent 4 months in recovery. Ms. Powers files claims against Arlington Hospital Association for medical malpractice and EMTALA violation.
This case was presented against Arlington Hospital Association in 1994.
Ultimately the plaintiff was awarded $5 million dollars for compensation for the count I of medical malpractice, although, this in this case, the jury did not affirm the plaintiffs claim of EMTALA violation against Arlington Hospital Association.
The healthcare organizations role in this case was justified according to the jury. The plaintiff was not denied care or treatment, although the physician failed to collect blood work or record the plaintiffs x-ray reports in her chart which could have ultimately detected her sepsis prior to the condition worsening this was a case of misdiagnosis. The hospital provided the plaintiff with a medical screening, stabilized her and later transferred her to an appropriate facility for further care. Therefore it was proven that this