Whether Franciscan hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Equitable Aid. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act forbids hospitals from withholding or downgrad| ing medical services when responding to a suspected | emergency medical condition. Franciscan hospital accepts Medicare and has specialized capabilities verified by Illinois licensing. Nartey requested that Franciscan’s emergency department identify and fix the cause of a sudden surge in | blood pressure accompanied by weakness on one side. } Franciscan substituted life-saving tests and omitted board-certified professionals required by its licensing. Franciscan later admitted its efforts were not for the , emergency conditions this hospital diagnosed. Did , Franciscan violate The Act? , 2. Disparate Treatment. The Department of = | Health and Human Services decrees delay under dire medical circumstances violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nartey is “black” and an emergency interpreter for the Ghanian language of Twi. Franciscan lacked the neurosurgical expertise necessary to treat the stroke | Franciscan diagnosed so Nartey requested transfer to | a higher-level hospital. Franciscan waited six days to | act on Nartey’s request. Franciscan then refused to select the stroke center in Franciscan’s written transfer agreement(s) which guaranteed available beds. Did Franciscan’s adverse acts violate Title VI? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued 3. Supplemental Jurisdiction. Illinois allows actions against hospitals “within four years after” the hospital’s adverse act or omission. Nartey filed her civil action pro se within the two years required for her federal claims. Then, with the district court’s leave, Nartey added Illinois fraud claims to recover from Franciscan’s prohibited omission of the transfer records and imaging scans needed to prove Nartey’s discrimination claims. Over two years remained to prosecute Nartey’s Illinois claims. Did the court violate supplemental jurisdiction by ; dismissing timely Illinois claims with prejudice? 4. Due Process. Rule 15 preserves procedural rights to amend thus ensuring the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury for plaintiffs. Pro se, Nartey presented her proposed amended and supplemental complaint in a motion under Rules 60(b), 60(d), 15, and 52 within 28 days of the District Court’s dismissal sanction. Though Nartey’s action included jury demand, the District Court refused to review the merits of Nartey’s proposed complaint. The Seventh Circuit omitted the complaint also. . Did the Seventh Circuit abandon due process?