According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA, there are claims that could be made against Community by Grant's estate. The first claim that could be made against Community is that they did not follow hospital standards. "EMTALA requires the hospital to provide an appropriate medical screening examination to determine whether a patient has an emergency condition" (Harris, pg 263). The hospital protocol stated that if a patient complained of a splitting headache, that they should a CT of the head as soon as possible. Instead of telling Grant to call her PCP the next day, they should have followed the hospital protocol. The second claim to make is due to the denial of the CT scan from the insurance. What they should have done is presented her with the whole story, and given her the option to pay out of pocket. Since this testing was necessary for a diagnosis, the physician could have also appealed the decision. Instead of presenting options to Grant in regard to their insurance, whether she preferred to pay out of pocket or not, they pushed the treatment to the next day for her PCP. These claims would hold up in court as the hospital protocols were not followed and there was negligence towards the patient.

Kindly respond to the three statements in your opinions

1.Respond to this.

Although the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) obligates hospitals to provide health care in emergency situations, it is limited on the scope of care a hospital is require providing. The law requires an appropriate medical screening exam be performed to determine if an emergency medical condition exists. If the screening determines that there is not an emergency medical situation, the hospital is no longer obligated to provide treatment under EMTALA. The hospital can then legally recommend a patient to seek care elsewhere (i.e. hospital, primary physician). A hospital is obligated to perform the same medical screening for symptoms displayed regardless of a patient's ability to pay. The medical screening process must be uniform for each potential emergency medical situation. Lastly, the hospital is also required by federal law to post a sign in the emergency room department that specifies these and other rights of the patient under EMTALA.

In assessing the case of Joan Grant as it is applied to the EMTALA, Ms. Grant was not given the standard medical screening for a sever headache. It was standard protocol not only at Community General hospital, but all hospitals within the area to provide a computed tomography (CT) scan of the head as soon as possible. Ms. Grant did not receive this information from the Dr. Jones regarding the CT scan being standard procedure when he informed her to go see her primary physician in the morning. The hospital under EMTALA legally should have performed the CT scan as it is part of the screening process. Ms. Grant's estate could file a claim against Community General Hospital for breaking protocol by not administering the standard medical screening CT scan for patient's complaining of splitting headache. Her estate would more than likely win this claim even though a CT scan would not have identified the aneurysm which killed her because the hospital violated the EMTALA by not providing standard screening. Ms. Grant's estate could also file a second claim that she was not notified of her rights under EMTALA by the hospital's failure to post a sign in the emergency room outlining patients' rights under EMTALA. This also is a violation of the federal law. The estate of Ms. Grant should be successful in this claim as well. Lastly, it is possible for the estate to file a medical malpractice suit against Community General Hospital but the ruling of such a suit is questionable. Should the hospital have administered the CT scan, the results would not have shown her rare aneurysm. The question would be what would have been the next steps in this situation based on previous medical screenings. If the CT scan was the extent of the uniformed medical screening process, the hospital under EMTALA would not be liable for this claim, but if there were additional testing associated based on a negative CT scan result, her claim may have merit. Since the case study did not outline all the standard medical procedures for her condition, we cannot conclude success or failure of this claim.

Harris,D.M. (2014).Contemporary issues in healthcare law & ethics(4thed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.

2.Respond

Community hospital participates in Medicare and has an emergency department so therefore they are required to provide emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay and follow EMTALA (Harris, 2014). This applies to all patients and even insured patients who are covered by managed care plans. If deemed an emergency medical condition then the hospital has to provide further treatment or transfer the patient (with strict requirements).

Grant's estate can file suit against Community for negligence by way of not following EMTALA standard. High probability of success

The hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening exam to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists. Grant arrived in the ED and EMTALA can be applied. The "appropriate medical screening exam" can be vague but does include ancillary services (ie. X-rays and CT scans) which are usually available to ED patients.The hospital is required to uniformly apply itsstandard screening procedurefor all patients with the same medical condition which is specific to the hospital's practice. It was deemed that Grant should be given a CT scan as soon as possible and she was denied based on her insurance coverage and discharged.

Grant's estate can file suit against Community for negligence. Moderate to high probability of success

It was deemed that Grant should be given a CT scan as soon as possible and according to the malpractice standard of care, this practice by similar providers in similar communitieswas ordinary at all of the hospitals in the area. She was denied based on her insurance coverage, but Grant was never asked if she was willing to pay for the procedure. The lack of information regarding the standard care given to Grant holds the hospital liable. Grant was never given a chance to make a decision regarding her care which was left up to her insurance company and ED doctor.

Harris, Dean M.Contemporary Issues in Healthcare Law & Ethics. 4th ed., Health Administration Press, 2014

3.Respond

According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA, there are claims that could be made against Community by Grant's estate. The first claim that could be made against Community is that they did not follow hospital standards. "EMTALA requires the hospital to provide an appropriate medical screening examination to determine whether a patient has an emergency condition" (Harris, pg 263). The hospital protocol stated that if a patient complained of a splitting headache, that they should a CT of the head as soon as possible. Instead of telling Grant to call her PCP the next day, they should have followed the hospital protocol. The second claim to make is due to the denial of the CT scan from the insurance. What they should have done is presented her with the whole story, and given her the option to pay out of pocket. Since this testing was necessary for a diagnosis, the physician could have also appealed the decision. Instead of presenting options to Grant in regard to their insurance, whether she preferred to pay out of pocket or not, they pushed the treatment to the next day for her PCP. These claims would hold up in court as the hospital protocols were not followed and there was negligence towards the patient..