Does the precedential ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals directly contradict Supreme Court precedent and the intent of Congress regarding the anti-retaliation whistleblower provision of EMTALA?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Does the Precedentialruling by the 3" Circuit Court of Appeals directly contradict United States Supreme Court precedent of Schindler Elevator Corporation vs. United States ex. rel. Daniel Kirk, 563 U.S. 401,131 S. Ct. 1885, 179 L. Ed. 2d 825, (2011) and Kasten vs. Saint-Gobain, 563 U.S. 1, 1318. Ct. 1825, 179 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2011) as well as the intent of the United States Congress, which crafted the language of the antiretaliation Whistleblower provision of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd, by grafting onto the definition of the word “report” a requirement that the information conveyed by the Whistleblower be not already known? II. In conjunction with the above, did the 3 Circuit Court of Appeals also overlook critical evidence which establishes that the Petitioner’s related common law cause of action brought pursuant to Pennsylvania’s public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is not preempted by the state Medical Malpractice statute “MCARE” Act and consequently should be permitted to proceed?