Q: EMTALA - CMIA. Federal case. Joinder controversy question.
1. How to argue that CMIA violation claim is independent from original EMTALA claim under Federal jurisdiction? The reason for supplemental jurisdiction for CMIA violation (state law) is that CMIA violation is closely related to failure to provide appropriate medical screening at emergency department (EMTALA). Record of non-existent terminal illness was made at ED, referral to hospice was based on terminal illness disclosed to hospice without authorization. How to prove that joining hospice as a party is dispensable?
2. How to state that filing claim for FCA must be under seal, against hospital and hospice? Hospital already is defendant in EMTALA complaint. Additional claim for proper FCA claim under seal would not be feasible.
Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
- California
- (916) 704-3009
- View Profile
- Answered
A:
To argue that a CMIA (California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act) violation claim is independent from an original EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) claim, focus on the distinct nature of the rights and protections each law provides. EMTALA primarily addresses the requirement for emergency medical screening and stabilizing treatment, while CMIA protects the confidentiality of medical information. Emphasize how the alleged CMIA violation, involving unauthorized disclosure of medical information, represents a separate legal issue, distinct from the EMTALA claim related to emergency medical treatment.
For proving that joining the hospice as a party is not necessary, you can argue that the core issue of the CMIA violation lies with the entity responsible for the unauthorized disclosure, which may be the hospital. If the hospice merely received the information without playing a role in its wrongful disclosure, their involvement in the case might not be essential to resolve the CMIA claim.
Regarding filing a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA), it is a legal requirement to file these claims under seal. This is to allow the government to investigate the allegations discreetly before deciding whether to intervene. Assert that adding an FCA claim against the hospital and hospice in an already ongoing EMTALA case could complicate the procedural requirements of the FCA, particularly the seal requirement. The effectiveness and feasibility of introducing an FCA claim within the current legal framework should be carefully evaluated, considering these procedural intricacies.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
