Denied access to emergency ENT services hospital-wide

[bcubed]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I have had health problems for 8 years; currently I have sleep apnea and hypoxemia. My Pulmonologist recently admitted me to the hospital for ENT suregry (specifically, to install a different type trach to better inspect the airway). The ENT department chair elected to deny me care, by himself or any of his subordinates--meaning any ENT MD in the hospital chain (chain has a near monopoly in Pittsburgh).

He had dismissed me from "this practice" in 4/2008. (My interpretation of quoted words would not be hospital-chain-wide.) Reasons were personality clash and a number of certified letters sent back-and-forth.

Questions for forum:
1. Isn't there a proviso whereby hospitals that receive Federal monies must provide care community-wide? (I.E. reason indigent cases are accepted.) "Hills-Burton" came up in my search, but seems to be in the process of phase-out. I'd appreciate a pointer to appropriate Federal/State statutes.

2. If the hospital has an established, printed "SOP" within its Patient Relations department to be followed for MD/patient disputes, is that past practice binding? (I.E. did dep't chair exceed scope of control by disregarding steps enumerated in in-house P.R.)

3. Considering this guy is Dept. Chair, and thus exercises certain managerial f'ns within the Otolaryngology dep't, do his actions--absent correction--carry the tacit approval of associated hospital brass?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[ecmst12]

Publically funded hospitals only have to provide EMERGENCY care to everyone. That means treatment in the ER to someone whose life is in danger at that moment. Not planned surgery or any other kind of non-emergency treatment. It is the practice's choice who they decide to treat.

 

[bcubed]

I'm sorry; I was unaware that this was a medical advice forum. I was asking for legal advice. Notwithstanding your diagnostic prowess, perhaps you could keep your medical opinions to yourself?

Anyone who knows what statutes require treatment of patients--Hills-Burton or otherwise--respond, please?

Again, does "past practice" re: patient/MD disputes have legal standing in much the same way that an "Employee Handbook" has legal standing over and above existing labor law?

 

[ecmst12]

Considering that an employee handbook is not law and in almost all cases does not constitute any type of contractual agreement, then yes the doctor's office past practice is EXACTLY like that. Meaningless.

Your posts here have proven your instability. You prove it over and over and over.

 

[bcubed]

Your posts here have proven your instability. You prove it over and over and over.

Okay, suppose (for the sake of the argument) I *am* mentally unstable. Are you insinuating that this is cause to deny care? I would think the Americans with Disabilities act would, if anything, strengthen my right to treatment. Also, superflous comments upon my mental status seem an attempt to discredit me--for what reasons, I do not know. I ask--yet again--that you save your medical opinions for a medical forum. I think this to be a reasonable request.

Considering that an employee handbook is not law and in almost all cases does not constitute any type of contractual agreement, then yes the doctor's office past practice is EXACTLY like that. Meaningless.

Actually, unless the lawyer who taught my "labor law" class was misinformed, employee handbooks can and do afford additional rights, depending on how they are written. Contractual agreements between employer/employee give additional rights, which is why it's hard to fire union employees (the "bargaining unit employee" contract). Therefore, the establishment of a Patient Relation dep't would seem an attempt to codify MD/patient disputes.

Are you aware of case law supporting your position?

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, unless the lawyer who taught my "labor law" class was misinformed

What did he say when you asked him about it?

ecmst12 has tried with what appears to be infinite patience to offer advice you could actually use - you might do well to either heed that advice, or consult with an attorney/your own medical team.

 

[bcubed]

Well, dogmatique, I asked three questions. emct12 (eventually) answered #2. I've yet to receive answers to #1 (where to look for relevant federal law, if not Hills-Burton) and #3 (Is a department chair an "agent" of the hospital as a whole?)

Furthermore, emcst12 feels the need to repeatedly make trenchant comments re: my mental status that I feel are way, way out-of-line.

 

[Zigner]

Well, dogmatique, I asked three questions. emct12 (eventually) answered #2. I've yet to receive answers to #1 (where to look for relevant federal law, if not Hills-Burton) and #3 (Is a department chair an "agent" of the hospital as a whole?)

Furthermore, emcst12 feels the need to repeatedly make trenchant comments re: my mental status that I feel are way, way out-of-line.

You've received your answer(s). Good day to you.

 

[ecmst12]

You are not entitled to force a doctor or group of doctors who do not want to treat you, to treat you against their wishes. If you arrive at the ER of a publically funded hospital, they must provide treatment to stabilize you. That's it. No ongoing care, no scheduled surgery, no follow up.

There are plenty of reasons not to want to treat a mentally unstable patient, if it is not your specialty to treat mental illness. Especially when the unstable person has shown a predisposition towards litigation. They know treating you would be an expensive mistake that they don't want to make.

You don't understand employment law very well, apparently, so don't make comparisons. And in fact, it doesn't apply - you are not an employee and you don't have ANY right to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you.