EMTALA action vs. Malpractice Action

EMTALA action differ from a malpractice action in the sense that it requires that a Medicare-provider hospital offer an appropriate medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists for any individual who presents to the emergency department seeking treatment. Any violation to the said requirement is a ground for claim of action. In general, medical malpractice liability is not limited to medical doctors as well. It also can extend to nurses, dentists, osteopaths, health care facilities and others providing health care services, such as nursing homes. In the context of hospital medical malpractice actions, hospitals can be held directly liable for their own negligence, and can also be held “vicariously” liable for the negligence of their employees. Vicarious liability means a party is held responsible not for its own negligence, but rather for the negligence of another. In hiring its medical staff, a hospital must make reasonable inquiries into an applicant’s education, training and licensing. If a hospital fails to make reasonable inquiries regarding a member of its medical staff, it might be held liable under the “corporate negligence” doctrine for negligent supervision or retention if the staff member’s negligent care injures a patient. On the other flip of a coin, If the hospital determines than an emergency medical condition occurs in a patient, it must then treat the patient or provide accommodation for the transfer of the patient to suitable medical facility. An important consideration to the case of EMTALA is that there is no private right of action against individual physicians unlike some malpractice actions for individual physician who are sub-contracted. Additionally, EMTALA claims are mostly if not strictly go against the hospital of the operating emergency department.