In the Interest of Z.K.R., a Child v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an EMTALA plaintiff is not required to show that the hospital’s actions or decisions were based on improper, nonmedical considerations
• holding that instances of 9 negligence in the EMTALA screening or diagnostic process, or of mere faulty screening, are not 10 actionable under EMTALA
• stating that “the hospital did have a screening procedure, even if unwritten in part, and the statute makes no additional requirement”
• stating that “[i]t is up to the hospital itself to determine what its screening process will be [and] ... [h]aving done so, it must apply them alike to all patients”
• stating that EMTALA was enacted “to address a distinct and rather narrow problem—the ‘dumping’ of uninsured, underinsured, or indigent patients by hospitals who did not want to treat them”
• explaining that the “purpose of the statute was to address a distinct and rather narrow problem—the ‘dumping’ of uninsured, underinsured, or indigent patients by hospitals who did not want to treat them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).