()

In The Legal’s medical malpractice supplement, articles focus on EMTALA, social media and the recovery of medical expenses.

Click here to view the digital edition.


A Plaintiffs View of EMTALA
Thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed into law expanded protections for those seeking emergency medical treatment with limited means to afford medical treatment. That federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), is now gaining acceptance as a means to add a potent federal claim to state law-based medical malpractice claims. Read more


A Defense View of EMTALA
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 13955dd (EMTALA), is the federal statute designed to prevent “patient dumping”—e.g., the transfer of patients who cannot pay for emergency medical services. Because the statute imposes additional money penalties ($50,000 per violation) on top of monies that are recoverable in a medical negligence claim, EMTALA holds some attraction for the plaintiff’s bar. Read more


Social Media as an Investigative Tool
Obtaining information about adverse parties or witnesses is a fundamental part of evaluating a case. Investigation of an opposing party or witness has dramatically changed with the wave of information published and available on the internet. Read more


Alternative Dispute Resolution in Medical Malpractice Cases
We cannot call alternative dispute resolution (ADR) the “new kid on the block” anymore. Read more


EMRs and Litigation: Issues Decided and What’s Next
Following President George W. Bush’s 2005 mandate, nearly every health care system has converted from hard copy paper records to an electronic medical records (EMR) system. We are now beginning to receive guidance from the appellate courts on how to handle some of the unique EMR litigation issues. The following is an overview of EMR cases that may impact the standard of care in medical professional liability cases. Read more


Appellate Decisions and the Recovery of Medical Expenses
Two Pennsylvania appellate court opinions have recently addressed the recovery of causally related medical expenses, and both decisions are of particular significance to attorneys handling medical negligence cases. In Protz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), No. 402 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 6, 2016), a panel of the Commonwealth Court addressed the issue of the recovery of medical expenses paid by a workers’ compensation insurer in a medical professional liability action. In the second decision, the Superior Court in Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, 122 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2015), decided the issue of whether a minor plaintiff can recover medical expenses during his minority where the claim for his parents is barred by the statute of limitations. Both Protz and Czimmer are important decisions concerning the ability to recover medical expenses in medical negligence cases. Read more