Category Archives: EMTALA

February 13, 2024

Avoiding EMTALA Penalties

by Kim Stanger

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) provides that if a patient comes to a hospital or hospital-owned urgent care center, the hospital and relevant on-call physicians must provide an appropriate screening exam and, if the patient has an emergency medical condition, provide stabilizing treatment or an appropriate transfer regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.  (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd; 42 C.F.R § 489.24). Participating hospitals with specialized capabilities cannot refuse to accept the transfer of an unstabilized person. (42 C.F.R § 489.24(f)). Physicians—including on-call physicians—who violate EMTALA may be subject to a civil penalty of $129,233.1 Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to civil penalties of $64,618 to $129,2332 per violation, lawsuits for damages, and/or exclusion from Medicare.  (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d); 42 C.F.R. § 1003.103(e); 45 C.F.R. § 102.3). Continue reading

October 3, 2023

No More EMTALA Exception to Idaho’s Total Abortion Ban

By Kim Stanger

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ended the EMTALA exception to Idaho’s total abortion ban, I.C. 18-622.

In 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the state of Idaho, claiming that EMTALA preempted the total abortion ban in emergency cases. The federal district court of Idaho entered a preliminary injunction staying Idaho’s enforcement of its total abortion ban in EMTALA cases pending final resolution of the case.  (See our August 26, 2022, Health Law Update.) However, on September 28, 2023, the Ninth Circuit overruled the district court, holding that an intervening decision by the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho’s amendment to the total abortion ban in 2023 mitigated, to a large extent, the concerns raised by the district court. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, thereby ending the EMTALA exception to the total abortion ban pending a final decision in the district court case. A copy of the Ninth Circuit decision may be accessed hereContinue reading

August 29, 2022

Idaho Abortion Laws: New Law and EMTALA Exception Now Effective

By Kim Stanger

Idaho’s total abortion ban is now in effect. Effective August 25, 2022, anyone who performs an abortion of a clinically diagnosable pregnancy is guilty of a felony unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or in the case of rape or incest.1 On August 24, 2022, the United States District Court of Idaho confirmed another important exception (at least for the time being): the Court entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the total abortion ban in cases in which the Emergency Medical Transport and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) would require hospital-affiliated providers to perform an abortion to protect the health of the mother.2 Given these developments, we have updated our answers to common questions concerning Idaho’s abortion laws. Continue reading

August 26, 2022

Idaho Abortion Law: The Limited EMTALA Exception

By Kim Stanger

Idaho’s total abortion ban took effect August 25, 2022. Under the statute, abortion of a clinically diagnoseable pregnancy is illegal unless necessary to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest. (Idaho Code 18-622). On August 24, 2022, the Federal District Court of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). (Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. State of Idaho, Case No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW, available here). The net effect is that, when EMTALA applies, a physician may perform an abortion if necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant woman, not just to save her life. With that said, it is important to understand the limited scope of the EMTALA exception. Continue reading

November 27, 2018

EMTALA: Guide for Exams, Treatment and Transfers

by Kim Stanger

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) generally requires hospitals to provide emergency care to patients who come to the hospital; violations may result in penalties of $53,000 to $105,000; private lawsuits; and/or termination of the hospital’s Medicare provider agreement.  To help hospitals and providers comply, Holland & Hart has published it’s EMTALA Guide, which is available here.  Among other things, the Guide addresses:

  • Which entities are covered by EMTALA?
  • When and where is EMTALA triggered?
  • EMTALA and urgent care centers.
  • Ambulances and diversions.
  • When and what is required for an appropriate medical screening exam (“MSE”)?
  • Who can perform MSEs?
  • How to determine if a patient is stabilized.
  • What is required for an appropriate transfer?
  • When must another facility receive transfers?
  • Documenting refusal of treatment or transfers.
  • Reporting EMTALA violations.

For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

May 31, 2017

The On-Call Physician’s Liability for Failing to Respond to Emergency Room Call

by Kim Stanger

On-call physicians may not realize their potential exposure if they fail or decline to respond to a call from the hospital’s emergency department. Failure to respond is a violation of the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) that may expose the physician to a $50,000 fine and exclusion from Medicare or Medicaid as well as contract liability. It may also expose the hospital to a fine of $50,000 and a lawsuit by the relevant patient or a hospital that receives an improper transfer.

EMTALA generally requires hospitals to provide an emergency screening examination and stabilizing treatment to a patient who comes to the hospital seeking emergency care. See 42 USC § 1395dd; 42 CFR § 489.24. EMTALA establishes the following penalties:

(A) A participating hospital that negligently violates a requirement of this section is subject to a civil money penalty of … not more than $25,000 … for each such violation.
(B) Subject to subparagraph (C) [below], any physician who is responsible for the examination, treatment, or transfer of an individual in a participating hospital, including a physician on-call for the care of such an individual, … is subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 for each such violation and, if the violation is gross and flagrant or is repeated, to exclusion from participation in [Medicare or Medicaid]….

Id. at § 1395dd(d)(1), emphasis added; see also 42 CFR §§ 1003.500(a)-(c) and 1003.510. EMTALA expressly states that the foregoing penalties apply when an on-call physician fails to respond to a call for assistance: Continue reading