Winifred Hardy v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. And Queens Hospital Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that New York’s notice- of-claim requirement did not directly conflict with any requirement of EMTALA
• holding that because notice of claim requirements are construed strictly, the “[f]ailure to comply with these requirements ordinarily requires a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action”
• holding New York’s 90-day notice-of-claim requirement not preempted by the Emergency Act because neither directly conflicting with the Act nor unduly burdensome
• holding that questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo
• acknowledging that New York courts strictly construe notice of claim requirements and that “[f]ailure to comply with th[ose] requirements ordinarily requires a dismissal . . . .”
• stating that the “mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).