Downtown Lawyer

Thompson v. Sparks Regional Medical Center, No. CA 08-1050.

Plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her foot during a motorcycle accident.  She was taken to St. Edward Mercy Medical Center (“St. Edward”), which did not have plastic surgeon on call to assist in the repair of her foot.  Plaintiff’s emergency room physician contacted the on-call plastic surgeon, Dr. James Kelly, at Sparks Regional Medical Center (“Sparks”) and learned that Dr. Kelly’s privileges at Sparks had been revoked.  Dr. Kelly refused to treat plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s father then contacted Sparks about the possibility of plaintiff receiving treatment there.  Employees of Sparks refused to accept plaintiff as a transfer patient from St. Edward, but noted that she could receive treatment if plaintiff’s father were to bring her to Sparks.  Plaintiff’s father then contacted another hospital, and another plastic surgeon came to St. Edward.

Plaintiff subsequently sued Sparks for refusing to accept her as a transfer patient, arguing that the delay in treatment resulted in the lost of her big toe.  Plaintiff alleged that Sparks violated, among other things, the anti-dumping provision of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”).  Sparks moved for summary judgment and asserted that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under EMTALA.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.

On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals explained that the “comes to” language in the anti-dumping provision of EMTALA is dispositive.  Because plaintiff never presented to Sparks and, therefore, was never turned away, she had no cause of action.