United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
GREGORY SCOTT AND MICHELLE SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR J.S. AS THE PARENTS AND TUTORS OF J.S.
RUSTON LOUISIANA HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC
MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiffs Gregory Scott and Michelle
Scott's (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion
for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
See Record Document 61. Defendant Ruston Louisiana
Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center
(“NLMC”) does not oppose the Motion. See
id. For the reasons contained in the instant Memorandum
Ruling, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
a healthcare services company that owns and operates a
hospital with an emergency department in Ruston, Louisiana.
See Record Document 1 at 1-2. Brady DuBois
(“DuBois”) was the CEO of NLMC at the time of the
events relevant to the instant action. See id. at 5.
Plaintiffs are residents of Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, and
parents of the minor J.S. See id. at 1.
early hours of August 19, 2014, J.S. presented to NLMC's
emergency room with neurological deficiencies in both her
upper and lower extremities. See id. at 2. By 9:07
AM, the attending emergency room physician, Dr. James Taylor
(“Dr. Taylor”), wanted to order an MRI to
evaluate J.S.'s condition. See id. However, no
MRI was performed upon J.S. until after 3:00 PM. See
id. Plaintiffs allege, based upon deposition testimony
by Dr. Taylor, that the delay was the result of a policy at
NLMC “that requires that emergency room requests for
MRIs be summarily denied and delayed until reimbursement from
the insurance company has been certified.” Id.
Plaintiffs allege that if the MRI had been performed at the
time Dr. Taylor originally sought to perform it, the hematoma
on J.S.'s spinal cord would have been identified and
treated in enough time to prevent the permanent paralysis she
later developed or that the severity of her symptoms would
have been reduced. See id. at 2-3.
first filed a state malpractice claim with the Louisiana
Patient Compensation Fund, seeking review of the claim by a
medical review panel as required by the Louisiana Medical
Malpractice Act (“LMMA”), La. R.S. 40:1231.1,
et seq. See Record Document 15 at 1.
Plaintiffs took Dr. Taylor's deposition in that case, and
discovered that they might have a claim under the Emergency
Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42
U.S.C. § 1395dd, et seq. See id.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant action in federal
court on March 21, 2016, with the following causes of action:
(1) EMTALA violations for inadequate medical screening,
disparate screening, delay of appropriate medical screening,
and delay of further medical examination and treatment; (2)
violation of the Louisiana Anti-Dumping Statute
(“LADS”), La. R.S. § 40:2113.4-6; (3)
negligent administration under state tort law; (4)
malfeasance under state tort law; and (5) “intentional
action” by “sanitizing” medical records.
Id. at 8-13. Plaintiffs also affirmatively alleged
that any damages awarded for their EMTALA claims are not
subject to the LMMA's damages caps. See id. at
6, 2016, Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
seeking (1) complete dismissal of all of Plaintiffs'
claims, with prejudice, or (2) alternatively, a stay of all
of Plaintiffs' claims pending a decision by the medical
review panel in the separate state medical malpractice case
in its Motion to Dismiss. See Record Document 10 at
1. Defendants also argued that “the plaintiffs'
claims sounding in medical negligence, which defendants
submit encompasses all complaints made herein, are
premature.” Record Document 10-2 at 3. After extensive
briefing on the Motion, Magistrate Judge Hayes issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion be
granted in part with the following disposition:
1) Dismissal of Plaintiffs' intentional tort claims with
2) Dismissal of Plaintiffs' EMTALA claims against DuBois
3) Dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim that their EMTALA
claims are not subject to the LMMA's damages caps with
4) Dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under LADS and for
negligence and malfeasance without prejudice as premature
because they fall under the LMMA's definition of medical
malpractice and therefore must first be presented to a
medical review panel.
See Record Document 27 at 26-27; see Scott v. N.
La. Med. Ctr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185056 (W.D. La.
2016). It also recommended staying the instant action pending
the outcome of the related medical review panel in the state
malpractice case. See id. at *29-30. Finally, it
recommended that the Motion be denied with respect to
Plaintiffs' EMTALA claim against NLMC, leaving the EMTALA
claim against NLMC as the only remaining claim in the instant
action. See id. at *9-13, 31.
the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation,
the parties went through several rounds of briefing regarding
the Report and Recommendation. See Record Documents
28, 30, 35, 38, 44, 45, and 48. On March 14, 2017, this Court
adopted the Report and Recommendation. See Record
Document 58; see Scott v. Ruston La. Hosp. Co., LLC,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36539 (W.D. La. ...