Q: Cmia claim - from Emtala case to potential FCA case.

A: In your situation, if the court mandates including a hospice as a defendant for a CMIA (California Medical Information Act) violation in an EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) case, and you wish to oppose this decision, there are a few strategies you can consider.

Firstly, you might propose to the court to strike the CMIA violation claim, at least temporarily. This can be based on your current capacity as a pro per litigant, meaning you are representing yourself and may not have the resources or ability to handle multiple defendants effectively. Explain that managing the complexity of additional claims against multiple parties is challenging without legal representation.

Secondly, you can argue that your research and preparation were specifically focused on the EMTALA claim due to the approaching statute of limitations. This limitation placed constraints on your ability to prepare for and include additional claims in your lawsuit.

Lastly, if you are not ready to bring a case against the hospice, especially with claims extending beyond CMIA violations, communicate this to the court. It's important to convey that including the hospice at this stage could overly complicate the case and dilute the focus from the primary EMTALA claim.

Remember, courts generally appreciate when litigants are straightforward about their limitations and the specific focus of their claims. It's crucial to present your concerns clearly and succinctly, outlining the reasons why adding the hospice as a defendant at this stage may not be in the best interests of justice or the effective management of your case.