Heirs of Medero v. Hospital Dr. Susoni, Inc. , 122 F. App'x 521 ( 2004 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1555
HEIRS OF JUAN MILETE MEDERO ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
HOSPITAL DR. SUSONI, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
____________________
AM CARE, INC. AND RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
Héctor J. Benítez Arraiza and Llovet Zurinaga & López, P.S.C.
on brief for appellants.
December 3, 2004
Per Curiam. Juan Milete Medero (Milete) arrived at
Hospital Dr. Susoni, Inc. (HDS) complaining of chest pain. A
battery of tests were performed in the emergency room and Milete
was then discharged. He died a few days later.
Milete's heirs brought suit in the federal district court
against HDS, AM Care (a firm that allegedly managed the emergency
room), and their respective insurers. The gravamen of the action
was the allegation that HDS and/or AM Care failed to perform
adequate screening, neglected to stabilize the decedent, and
prematurely discharged him in violation of the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2003).
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint.
In due course, the district court granted a motion for summary
judgment filed by HDS and its insurer (St. Paul Fire & Marine
Insurance Co.). The court dismissed the action with prejudice as
to all the defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed. While their appeal was pending,
the plaintiffs, HDS, and St. Paul negotiated a settlement. The
terms of the settlement are obscure, and the parties apparently
disagree as to whether the settlement abrogated the plaintiffs'
claims against AM Care and its insurer (Reliance Insurance Co.).
In consequence of the settlement, we entered an order dismissing
the appeal vis-à-vis HDS and St. Paul. Appellate courts lack a
mechanism for factfinding, however, and the dispute as to whether
-2-
the settlement has a broader reach remains unresolved. The
plaintiffs' appeal is still pending as to AM Care and Reliance.
The plaintiffs desire to press forward with what remains
of their appeal. AM Care and Reliance, apparently believing that
the claims against them were extinguished by the settlement, have
not filed a brief. To complicate matters, the plaintiffs' brief,
filed prior to the consummation of the settlement, addresses only
the claims against HDS and St. Paul. It does not specifically
address the more nuanced claims advanced against AM Care and
Reliance. We say "more nuanced" because it is unclear whether AM
Care — a non-hospital health care provider — is a proper defendant
under EMTALA.1
In the present posture of the case, we think that the
course of prudence is summarily to vacate the judgment below as to
AM Care and its insurer and remand to the district court for
further proceedings. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). On remand, the
district court first should explore the scope of the settlement and
determine whether it extinguished the plaintiffs' claims against AM
Care and its insurer. If so, the court should dismiss the
remaining claims on that ground.
If, however, the claims against AM Care and its insurer
survive the settlement, the court should then resolve the statutory
1
The district court noted this question and directed the
parties to brief it. After receiving the parties' memoranda, the
court never resolved the question.
-3-
construction question, namely, whether EMTALA applies to non-
hospital providers like AM Care. If the court answers that query
affirmatively, it next should proceed to address the EMTALA claims
on the merits and enter judgment accordingly. But if the court
answers the statutory construction question in the negative, it
should dismiss the claims against AM Care and its insurer without
prejudice for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
We add two caveats. First, our vacation of the judgment
neither applies to HDS and St. Paul nor affects the earlier order
dismissing the appeal as to those parties. That aspect of the case
is finished. Second, we intimate no view as to the ultimate
resolution of any of the issues that must be vetted on remand.
Having mapped the terrain, we need go no further.
Vacated and remanded. All parties shall bear their own
costs.
-4-