Plaintiff suffered a stroke while in custody. He asserts that Defendants were negligent or failed to provide adequate medical care, which includes failing to identify and treat his stroke.
On May 16, 2019, while detained pretrial at Curry County Detention Center, Plaintiff was seen by Wellpath nurses for severely elevated blood pressure. Plaintiff alleged that he had signs of a stroke, including elevated blood pressure, a headache, inability to feel his legs, inability to walk, dizziness, weakness, lethargy, and lack of coordinated movement.
Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room at Plains Regional Medical Center, a PHS facility. Plaintiff alleged that he was evaluated by Dr. Durso, and underwent a CT scan, which was interpreted by a radiologist at Radiology Associates of Albuquerque. The radiologist allegedly reported normal findings. Plaintiff alleged that the doctors and PHS failed to identify or treat his stroke. Plaintiff was treated for hypertension and discharged.
Plaintiff and Defendant PHS filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”) claim.
The New Mexico federal court stated in its August 13, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order: “Plaintiff asserts an EMTALA claim (Count V) against Defendant PHS, alleging that it (1) failed to screen Plaintiff according to its standard screening procedures and (2) failed to stabilize him before discharging him or transferring him … Plaintiff’s EMTALA claim fails on both prongs. First, the record does not reflect that Defendant PHS failed to follow the standard screening procedures in the emergency department at Plains Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff failed to cite or put into the record Defendant’s standard screening procedure or show a deviation from that standard screening procedure. Moreover, the record demonstrates that Defendant PHS screened Plaintiff but at most simply misdiagnosed him or failed to identify his stroke. Plaintiff’s assertions may be relevant to a medical negligence or malpractice claim, but do not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to an EMTALA claim. Second, Plaintiff did not create a genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant PHS had actual knowledge of an unstabilized emergency medical condition before transferring or discharging him.”
The New Mexico federal court held: “In sum, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of citing to Defendant PHS’s standard screening procedures or demonstrating that Defendant PHS treated him differently from others with the same perceived medical condition. Alternatively, even if he provided Defendant PHS’s standard screening procedure, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant PHS violated that procedure by (1) failing to “walk” him and (2) performing a noncontrast CT instead of a CT angiogram or perfusion. Dr. Durso diagnosed him with hypertension and provided him with medication. The alleged failure to diagnose Plaintiff properly must be addressed in a negligence or malpractice claim, and not an EMTALA claim.”
“Defendant PHS carried its initial burden of demonstrating that it did not have actual knowledge (1) by showing that it diagnosed Plaintiff with hypertension and treated him for hypertension, and (2) by providing deposition testimony by Dr. Durso that he believed he had diagnosed, treated, and stabilized Plaintiff. Moreover, a radiologist reported that no stroke was visible on a CT scan. In response, Plaintiff cites to nothing in the record to demonstrate that Defendant PHS had actual knowledge that he had an unstabilized emergency condition. Doc. 114 at 10; Doc. 81 at 12. Although Plaintiff cited to some symptoms he asserts are consistent with a stroke, those symptoms were non-specific and he does not cite to anything suggesting that Defendant PHS was aware that he was suffering a stroke. Dr. Durso diagnosed him with another condition and treated him. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant PHS had actual knowledge of an unstabilized emergency medical condition and transferred him without stabilizing his medical condition in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(1).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Ninth Judicial District Court, Curry County, New Mexico. The Clerk of Court is directed to take the necessary actions to remand this case. Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case, the Court does not rule on the remaining motions in this case which were not addressed in this opinion.”
Source Harrison v. Bursztyn, 1:24-cv-00724 KWR/JFR.
If you or a loved one may have an EMTALA violation claim in New Mexico or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a New Mexico medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state. who handles EMTALA claims and may investigate your EMTALA claim for you and represent you or your loved one in an EMTALA case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
