Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 03-3050 SECTION L(2)
March 10, 2004
ORDER REASONS
Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff David Walter Acosta brought this pro se suit against Pelican State Outpatient Clinic for alleged violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, and for medical malpractice. Mr. Acosta claims that on October 8, 2001, he went to the Pelican State Outpatient Clinic to receive medical treatment for incontinence. Acosta alleges that a physician examined him, diagnosed him with Type II diabetes, and provided him with insulin. The physician required Mr. Acosta to remain at the clinic for four hours until his glucose level had declined. The Plaintiff alleges that once his glucose level had dropped, the physician instructed him that he could leave the clinic but that he could not drive. Mr. Acosta contends that when he was discharged from the outpatient clinic, he was "full of fluids" and received a diuretic the next day from the Lallie Kemp Medical Center to eliminate the swelling. Acosta argues that the Pelican State Outpatient Clinic violated the antidumping provisions of the EMTALA by failing to stabilize this condition prior to discharging him.
The Plaintiff also seeks damages under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act for his treatment in October 2001 and February 2002. The Plaintiff alleges that physicians employed by the Defendant became aware in February 2002 that he had a blockage in his heart, but that they did not disclose this heart condition. Medical examinations in May 2002 by other physicians revealed that the Plaintiff had suffered a heart attack and that he had severe arterial blockages. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat his heart condition.
The Defendant seeks to dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiffs EMTALA claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant also seeks to dismiss or to stay the Plaintiffs claims brought pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, alleging that the claims are premature. In the alternative the Defendant seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice because the pleadings fail to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
LAW ANALYSIS
Pro se complaints are liberally construed and all well pleaded allegations are accepted as true. Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, the mere "'conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions'" of any plaintiff will not prevent a motion to dismiss. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting 5. Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 2001)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1200 (2003).
In its review of a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well pleaded facts as true and view the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Dismissal is warranted only if it appears that the Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2004).
1. The EMTALA Claims
The Plaintiff alleges that Pelican Outpatient Clinic failed to stabilize his emergency medical condition before discharging him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. The EMTALA was enacted as an "anti-dumping" statute and was passed in response to hospitals who were refusing emergency medical services for indigent patients by either turning away patients with emergency medical conditions or by transferring them before their emergency conditions were stabilized. Miller v. Medical Ctr. of Southwest La., 22 F.3d 626, 628 (5th Cir. 1994). The statute mandates that a hospital screen any patient who seeks treatment at its emergency department. If the screening reveals an emergency condition, the statute mandates that the hospital provide sufficient treatment to stabilize the emergency condition or else transfer the patient in accordance with the EMTALA's transfer provisions. Green v. Touro Infirmary, 992 F.2d 537, 539 (5th Cir. 1993).
The EMTALA does not create a federal medical malpractice claim, and a patient may bring a private right of action against a hospital only in the emergency situations specifically delineated by the statute. To establish a claim under EMTALA, a patient must show: 1) that the patient went to the defendant's emergency room; 2) that the patient had an emergency medical condition; and 3) that the defendant did not adequately screen him to determine whether he had an emergency medical condition, or 4) that the defendant discharged him before the emergency condition was stabilized. Miller, 22 F.3d at 630 n. 8.
Construing the Plaintiffs complaint in a light most favorable to him, the Plaintiff avers that Pelican State Outpatient Clinic is liable for failing to stabilize as required by EMTALA. The Plaintiffs complaint states that he went to the Defendant's outpatient clinic for treatment for incontinence. The Plaintiff does not aver that he came to the emergency department of the Pelican State Outpatient Clinic. In fact, the record before the Court indicates that the Pelican State Outpatient Clinic lacks an emergency department and therefore is not covered by the EMTALA. Accordingly, the EMTALA is not applicable and the Plaintiffs claims under the EMTALA are DISMISSED.
2. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Claims
The Plaintiff also claims that physicians employed by the Defendant were negligent in failing to diagnose and to treat his heart condition. Louisiana law requires that all malpractice claims brought against qualified health care providers first must be submitted to be reviewed by a medical review panel. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.47(A)-(B) (West 2001). When a Plaintiff brings suit against a qualified health care provider before submitting his claim to the medical review panel, his suit is premature and should be dismissed without prejudice. Englande v. Glaxo Smithkline, 206 F. Supp.2d 815, 817 (E.D. La. 2002); Brister v. Southwest La. Hospital Ass'n, 624 So.2d 970, 971 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1993).
The Defendant is a qualified health care provider within the meaning of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. Plaintiff must therefore present his claim to a medical review panel before bringing suit for medical negligence. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act are premature and are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs claims under the EMTALA are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Plaintiffs claims under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs.