A Case Analysis of Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. After a car accident in February of the year 2000, left Luis Jimenez with severe brain damage and physical injuries, conflicts of his medical care led to an eight-year legal battle between Martin Memorial Medical Center and Montejo Gaspar Montejo, his appointed guardian. Due to federal regulations, Martin Memorial Hospital was required to provide critical care to Luis Jimenez who was an illegal immigrant. EMTALA requires hospitals to provide an appropriate medical screening and necessary treatment to anyone who comes into the emergency room. Treatment must be provided regardless of a patient’s ability to pay or citizenship (Canedy, 2002). Hospitals are typically reimbursed …show more content…
The hospital was granted permission to transport Mr. Jimenez to Guatemala at their own expense. Martin Memorial was required to provide “a suitable escort with the necessary medical support for the Ward’s trip back to Guatemala” (Findlaw, 2017, p. 1). Montejo filed an appeal on July 9, 2003 as well as a motion to stay. Martin Memorial was given until 10 am on July 10th to respond to the motion to stay. The hospital took advantage of the response time and transported Mr. Jimenez back to Guatemala before they had to file a response. This act shows Martin Memorial’s desperation to remove the patient from their facility. After its desperate act, Martin Memorial claims that the appeal is moot because Mr. Jimenez’s return was preempted by federal immigration law (Klein, …show more content…
Montejo was able to use this statement to his advantage in another case. He provided evidence to argue that Martin Memorial did not provide enough evidence to support a proper discharge because the patient was not sent to an appropriate rehabilitation center. Because Martin Memorial receives federal reimbursements, under 42 C.F.R. section 482.43 (d) they are only allowed to discharge patients if they find an accepting facility that would meet the patient’s medical needs (Klein, 2015). It was determined by the hospital’s discharge committee that Mr. Jimenez required post-hospital care at a brain injury rehabilitation center. The hospital did not have documentation stating the accepting facility provided proper rehabilitation. Dr. Miguel Graces testified that no such facilities existed in Guatemala. In addition, the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction was questioned because federal immigration law preempts deportation (Klein, 2015). Consequently, on May 5, 2004 the court order authorizing the transport of Mr. Jimenez was reversed.
The reverse of this order, led to another lawsuit filed by Montejo in September 2004 claiming false imprisonment. The case was initially dismissed due to Martin Memorial stating at that time they had a valid order to transport Mr. Jimenez which laid grounds for immunity. However, the dismissal was challenged. The question was if immunity from a false imprisonment claim could be granted if the court did not have jurisdiction. Under Florida law,
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
.... “The Strange Case of Marlise Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital.” n.p.. 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources.
Who would you trust with your life? In the case of the Cruzan vs Missouri Department of Health the question comes into play, do parents have the ability to choose between life and death circumstances for their child? In Missouri on Jan. 11, 1983, as Nancy Beth drove home from her job at a cheese factory in Carthage, Mo. On that day she was in a really bad automobile accident. She had been in what doctors described as an beyond repair vegetative state. Her car tipped over and she had got ejected from the car, she was found in the ditch by paramedics and they tried to save her heart for fifteen minutes. Luckily people got there in time, but was it really in time to save her life. She was found face down in a ditch, and paramedics restarted her heart. But because she had stopped breathing for about 15 minutes, she suffered severe brain damage. The car accident was so bad it left her in a vegetative state and Missouri state hospital claimed she was brain dead. She was kept alive by machines, a feeding tube, and a respirator. The
For much of the United States’ history, problems with private hospitals refusing to treat people without financial means and transferring them to public hospitals existed. Many patients who were in serious medical crisis did not survive the journey or many died soon after. This proved that these transfers can be detrimental to the emergency victim’s health.
The American people needed help more than ever. Due to the Great Depression and war, many hospitals became obsolete and over 40% of the nation’s countries didn't have any hospitals. Luckily, a new law passed by Congress would solve that problem. Following the Great Depression and war, the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, also known as the Hill-Burton Act was passed in 1946. The Hill-Burton Act was to provide grants and loan to facilities for the construction of nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, hospitals and health centers (Health & Human Services, 2000). Facilities receiving these funds had three rules to follow: they weren’t allowed to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or creed, though some ‘separate but equal’ facilities were allowed, provide a ‘reasonable volume’ of free care each year for those residents in the facility’s area who needed care but could not afford to pay and states and localities were also required to prove the economic viability of the facility in question (Newman, 2004).
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
The US Commissioner Report (2011) details the rise in patient dumping from in the last ten years. Previously, hospitals were in their legal right to refuse health care to patients. It was not until the ~1980’s that a law was bought in to stop patient dumping and the refusal of treatment. Patient dumping occurs when patients are either uninsured, immigrants or lack funds to pay for medical bills that hospitals ‘dump’/relocate in a dishonourable way those patients to over hospitals. In doing so, that hospital is therefore not liable to provide treatment to the patient. It is now estimated that 250,000 US patients annually are denied medical treatment, in addition 15.4% of US citizens do not have health insurance. Recent research (Blalock & Wolfe,
Because the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the removal of Nancy Cruzan’s artificial hydration and nutrition on the grounds that “clear and convincing” evidence of Nancy’s wishes was not provided, the Cruzan family appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court arguing that Nancy was being deprived of her right to refuse medical treatment. The Supreme Court ruling affirmed that competent patients have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but also noted that incompetent patients are not capable of exercising this right. Consequently, states may establish their own safe-guards to govern cases in which a substituted decision maker wishes to refuse treatment for an incompetent patient. This ruling therefore upheld the decision of Missouri’s Supreme Court.
28 Sep 2011. Madeline Pelner Cosman. Illegal Immigrants Threaten U.S. Health Care. At Issue: What Rights? Should Illegal Immigrants Have?
Stephen Jonas, Raymond G, Karen G, “An Introduction to the US healthcare System” 6th Edition, Page 118, 25 May 2007
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Emilio is terminally ill and is under the care of the Children’s Hospital in Texas. He is placed on life support by a respirator and is given pills causing the child to spend majority of his time in the pediatric intensive care unit unconscious. Showing no signs of improvement, the physician has requested the parents look for another hospital willing to continue aiding Emilio within a period of 10 days. Under the Texas “futile-care” law, the hospital’s ethics committee can, “declare the care of a terminally ill patient to be of no benefit,” allowing them to terminate care after a given time period. (Moreno, Sylvia. Case Puts Futile-Treatment Law Under a Microscope.
Despite the official mission of the Public Health Service being to prevent the entry of disease, in reality, officials were more likely to deny an immigrant entry on labor inability grounds as opposed to on a medical basis. Thus, after a more thorough inspection, those with a negative or minor diagnosis would receive an “OK” card, allowing them to move forward in the immigration process. Even those who were diagnosed with a more serious defect or disease and received a medical certificate were given a hearing before the Immigration Services Board of Special Inquiry (Fairchild and Bateman-House). Medical certificates were typically overruled due to the massive labor demand, so people were usually only denied entry if their condition inhibited