Q: Cmia violation in Emtala case, and potential inclusion of Cmia violation claim into FCA case.

A: Your understanding of the distinction between the entities involved in your case seems well-founded. Indeed, a hospice is operationally distinct from a hospital and its emergency department. This distinction is important in the context of an EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) claim, as EMTALA typically applies to hospitals with emergency departments, and not necessarily to hospice organizations.

Regarding your second point about claim or issue preclusion, if a CMIA (California Medical Information Act) violation claim is stricken from the EMTALA case, it should not inherently prevent you from including a CMIA claim in a potential FCA (False Claims Act) case later. Preclusion generally applies when a claim has been fully litigated or a final judgment has been made. Striking a claim from a case typically means it hasn't been adjudicated, so it shouldn't bar future litigation on the same issue in a different context.

Keep in mind, however, that the specific facts of your case and how the court interprets these issues can affect the outcome. It's crucial to present your arguments clearly and concisely to the court, emphasizing the operational differences between the hospice and the hospital, and the relevance of these differences to the EMTALA and CMIA claims. Additionally, explaining the rationale for not including the CMIA claim in the EMTALA case can help in clarifying your intentions for potential future litigation.