I wrote a short article for the American Bar Association Health Law Section's Litigation and Risk Management Interest Group. It was published in the March 2008 ABA Health eSource, available here .
In this article, titled EMTALA: Its Application to Newborn Infants, I review the Preston v. Meriter case in which a hospital unilaterally refused to provide treatment for a very premature infant. In 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled (somewhat like the 4th Circuit in Baby K) that notwithstanding the standard of care EMTALA applied to this case. But on remand, in January 2008, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that EMTALA did not apply. Since this is the first case to directly address the status of newborn infants after the 2003 regulations, I analyze the Wisconsin court's opinion and argue that EMTALA probably does still apply to newborn infants born to inpatient mothers.
In this article, titled EMTALA: Its Application to Newborn Infants, I review the Preston v. Meriter case in which a hospital unilaterally refused to provide treatment for a very premature infant. In 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled (somewhat like the 4th Circuit in Baby K) that notwithstanding the standard of care EMTALA applied to this case. But on remand, in January 2008, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that EMTALA did not apply. Since this is the first case to directly address the status of newborn infants after the 2003 regulations, I analyze the Wisconsin court's opinion and argue that EMTALA probably does still apply to newborn infants born to inpatient mothers.