Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-3456 Section: "R"(2)
January 30, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before this Court are West Jefferson Medical Center's motion to stay and Dr. William Hart's motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to stay. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions.
I. Background
On November 17, 1999, Blanche Vaughn visited the emergency department of the West Jefferson Medical Center complaining of pain in her abdomen. Ms. Vaughn alleges that she waited in the emergency department for three hours without receiving any care. Eventually, Ms. Vaughn went to the bathroom and gave birth to her daughter, Aliah Vaughn. On November 16, 2000, plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint with the Louisiana Patient's compensation Fund under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act against the West Jefferson Medical Center's emergency room staff for negligently failing to diagnose her timely and against Dr. William Hart, who allegedly worked in the emergency department on the day of the incident.
On November 16, 2001, before a medical review panel made a determination on her administrative complaint, Ms. Vaughn, individually and on behalf of her minor child Aliah Marie Vaughn, filed a complaint against both defendants in this Court alleging that the defendants committed professional negligence and violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd ("EMTALA"). Dr. Hart asks the Court to dismiss the EMTALA claim against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to dismiss the medical malpractice claim as premature, or, in the alternative, to stay the suit as to the medical malpractice claim. West Jefferson Medical Center asks the Court to stay this action pending the outcome of the administrative Medical Review Panel proceeding. Plaintiff filed no responses in opposition to the motions.
II. Discussion
A. 12(b)(6)
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996); American Waste Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991). Dismissal is warranted if "it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994)).
B. Claims Against Dr. Hart
Dr. Hart argues that plaintiff fails to state a claim against him under EMTALA because the statute does not create a private cause of action against physicians. A review of the relevant case law demonstrates that the federal courts that have addressed this argument have found no private cause of action against physicians under EMTALA. See, e.g., Eberhardt v. City of Los Angeles, 62 F.3d 1253, 1255-57 (9th Cir. 1995) (plain text of EMTALA explicitly limits a private right of action to the participating hospital and legislative history evinces clear Congressional intent to bar individuals from pursuing civil actions against physicians); King v. Ahrens, 16 F.3d 265, 271 (8th Cir. 1994); Delaney v. Cade, 986 F.2d 387, 393-94 (10th Cir. 1993); Baber v. Hospital Corporation of America, 977 F.2d 872, 877-78 (4th Cir. 1992); Smith v. Janes, 895 F. Supp. 875, 878-79 (S.D. Miss. 1995); Lavignette v. West Jefferson Medical Center, 1990 WL 178708, *2 (E.D. La. 1990). In light of the sound reasoning applied in the cited cases, and in the absence of any authority to the contrary, the Court finds that EMTALA provides no private cause of action against physicians. Therefore, plaintiff cannot state a claim against Dr. Hart under EMTALA.
Dr. Hart also seeks to dismiss plaintiff's medical malpractice claim because the claim has not been presented to a medical review panel. Louisiana Revised Statute Section 40:1299.47(A)(1) states that "[a]ll malpractice claims against health care providers covered by this Part . . . shall be reviewed by a medical review panel. . . ." LA.REV.STAT. § 40:1299.47(A)(1). Further, under Section 40:1299.47(B)(1)(a) (i), "[n]o action against a health care provider covered by this Part, or his insurer, may be commenced in any court before the claimant's proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established pursuant to this Section." LA.REV.STAT. § 40:1299.47(B)(1)(a)(i). Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against Dr. Hart is premature because a medical review panel has not yet reviewed the claim. See Brister v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association, (La.App. Cir. 1993) ("When a medical malpractice plaintiff files suit prior to review by a medical review panel, the suit is premature."). Furthermore, courts in this district have routinely dismissed medical malpractice claims without prejudice when they were filed in federal court before a resolution of the claims by a Louisiana medical review panel. See, e.g., Hermann v. Handy, 2000 WL 739294, *2 (E.D. La. 2000); Alsay v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 1998 WL 661479, *4 (E.D. La. 1998); Lavignette, 1990 WL 178708 at *2.
C. Stay of EMTALA Action Against West Jefferson Medical Center
A district court has general discretionary power to stay proceedings before it in the control of its docket and in the interest of justice. McNight v. C.H. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 1982). West Jefferson Medical Center seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of the Medical Review Panel proceeding. It is true that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that Louisiana's medical panel review requirement is preempted by federal law in EMTALA cases ( see Spradlin v. Acadia-St. Landry Med. Foundation, 758 So.2d 116, 123 (La. 2000)). At the same time, plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against the hospital must first be reviewed by a medical review panel and is subject to dismissal for prematurity. See discussion, infra; see also Spradlin, 758 So.2d at 117. Further, as is often the case, plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against the hospital overlaps with her EMTALA claim. Given the relatedness of the claims, the Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to stay the EMTALA proceedings against West Jefferson pending a determination by the Medical Review Panel on the malpractice claim. See Spradlin, 758 So.2d at 124 (noting that court in EMTALA action may want to consider granting a stay during pendency of medical review panel's review of related medical malpractice claim).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS Dr. Hart's motion to dismiss the EMTALA claim with prejudice and to dismiss the medical malpractice claim without prejudice. Further, the Court GRANTS West Jefferson Medical Center's motion to stay the EMTALA claim and dismisses the malpractice claim against it without prejudice.
The Court notes that should plaintiff re-file her medical malpractice claims in federal court, the claims will be consolidated with the EMTALA claim now pending in this Court.