Re:_EMTALA_–_ANTI-DUMPING_ACT:

[Guest guest]

I have a consult with Dr. Peery scheduled for Monday 1/2 based on an

open referral and denial letter written by Dr. Lance .

I have emails back and forth from Dick e and was told he was

consulted by Dr. Lance , medical director for hyperbarics at

Roper. Dr. stated they are an accredited facility and by

treating my Pop's " off label " would compromise their accredited

status. He stated Mr. e would need to approve the use.

He next stated Dr. e has donated various chambers to 3rd world

countries for human testing which is difficult to do in the US and

he would inquire if Mr. e knows of any studies or tests that

may be applicable in my father's case.

Funny thing is Mr. e is not a medical doctor... Yet controls

treatment decisions of a doctor who is on his payroll...

Around 3:00am this morning.. On 1/1/06 my pops was sent back to the

emergency room with low BP and low respirations. They have him

vented and appear most interested in securing consent for a DNR.

According to the nursing home.. he was transfered to them with a

fever and respitory issues... I requested the transfer papers and

they stated they can only release records they create and not the

Roper records...

Went to Roper this AM... I've stated my case that he is in a locked

in state and not in a coma or PVS as certified on his charts. I've

request for a SPECT Scan and EEG... Even demonstrated to the

treating nurse the conscious responses he is able to make.

The plan is to ween him off his vent by wed 1/3/06 and after wed to

discontinue the vent and let nature take its course...

Really a tough situation for the family right now, any input or

guidance is appreciated.

> > > Leave HBOT out of it, not necessary to allege or

> prove under

> > > EMTALA...

> > >

> > > Take a look at an absolutely on point legal brief:

>

> > >

> http://pages.prodigy.net/mark_bower/legalbrief/update.htm

>

> > >

> > > Medical screening and stabalization is what is

> mandatory before

> > > discharge otherwise it is an absolute violation.

> Once it is found

> > > that the hospital has discharged a patient without

> " stabilizing "

> > > an " emergency medical condition " , absolute

> liability is imposed by

> > > the statute. The EMTALA does not use the terms

> " negligence "

> > > or " malpractice " (42 U.S.C. §1395dd[d][3][A]). The

> courts have

> > > found that the absence of such terms was

> intentional, reflecting

> > > congressional intent to impose absolute, or

> strict, liability on a

> > > hospital for failure to comply with EMTALA's

> requirements.

> > >

> > > Definitions are the key here...

> > >

> > > " Stabilized " , as defined in 42 U.S.C.

> §1395dd[e][4], refers to

> > > whether " no material deterioration of the

> condition is likely,

> > > within reasonable medical probability, to result

> from the transfer

> > > of the individual from a facility. " It does not

> mean that the

> > > plaintiff's vital signs were regular or normal -

> which is

> > > way " stable " is typically used in Emergency Room

> parlance. That

> > may

> > > be all that the Emergency Room Records do

> === Message Truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> __________________________________________

> DSL – Something to write home about.

> Just $16.99/mo. or less.

> dsl.

>