Q: Federal filing question. Emtala - cmia - FCA

A: In the situation you've described, where an EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) federal complaint has been filed against a hospital, with an additional claim under the CMIA (Confidentiality of Medical Information Act), the question of joinder of parties can indeed arise. The hospital's defense may file a motion to strike for failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19, arguing that the hospice, to whom identifiable medical information was disclosed, is a required party in the case.

To counter this, you could argue that the hospice should not be joined in the EMTALA case for the CMIA claim. Your argument can be based on the specifics of Rule 19, which outlines criteria for determining whether a party is necessary. You would need to demonstrate that the hospice's involvement is not essential for providing complete relief among the parties present in the case, or that its absence will not impede its ability to protect its interests or leave any of the current parties subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations.

Regarding the concern about the FCA (False Claims Act) being a separate case to be filed under seal, this is a valid consideration. It's important to keep in mind that joinder issues can be complex and are heavily dependent on the specific facts of each case. The decision to join parties should be weighed carefully, considering the implications it may have on the overall strategy of the case, especially in situations where multiple laws and claims are involved. It's often advisable to consult with an attorney experienced in federal court litigation to navigate these complexities effectively.