United States v. Menzel & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a]s long as a hospital applies the same screening procedures to indigent patients which it applies to paying patients, the hospital does not violate this section of the Act”
• explaining that statute’s appropriate medical screening requirement “only requires a hospital to provide indigent patients with a medical screening similar to one which they would provide any other patient”
• EMTALA \is not designed to redress a negligent diagnosis by the hospital; no federal malpractice claims are created.\
• “the congressional purpose behind the enactment of EMTALA supports the conclusion that this language only requires a hospital to provide indigent patients with a medical screening similar to one which they would provide any other patient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).