There does appear to be a continuing development in *common* law  of a
"doctrine of non-delegatable duty" (it being against the public good
for a hospital to be able to blame-shift to an independently
contracted ED physician).  I believe it's been established in several
states, e.g. Alaska, and it's a step beyond vicarious liability under
the doctrine of ostensible agency.

Does EMTALA in *statute* law analogously set up another roadblock in
hospitals' efforts at this?

An interesting case was McDougal v LaFourche, DC ELa, No 92-2006,
5/24/93. The clinical encounter occurred in 1991, and part of the
festivities included the hospital, *in a separate complaint,* suing
it's own physician for indemnification for any EMTALA hit it might
take as a result of his alleged acts. A lower Louisiana court allowed
this action to go forward! (Applicability would be limited to
Louisiana.) I couldn't find  [Westlaw] reference to the resolution of
this aspect of the case in its final disposition at 95 1377 (La.App. 1
Cir. 4/4/96), 672 So.2d 398. Does anyone know what happened, and
whether this was mooted by the hospital not being found in EMTALA
violation in the first place?

Peter J. Mariani MD FACEP
http://www.hscsyr.edu/~EMERGMED/LEGAL/medleg.html

-------------------------
Signs and release forms regarding Independent Contractors and EMTALA -- do
they truly protect the hospital or do they constitute "too little, too late?"
 [see:  Clark v. Southview Hospital & Family Health Ctr., 628 N.E.2d at 54 &
 n. 1].  Several courts have held that once the patient appears at the
 hospital ED, they have turned "to the hospital," and the hospital is liable
 for the physician.  [see:  Sampson v. Baptist Memorial Hospital System, No.
 04-95-009-10CV. (Tex.Ct.App., 4th Dist. Nov. 13, 1996); reported in 18
 Medical Liability Reporter 318 (December 1996)].  On the other hand, one
 appellate court found that the wording in their consent form, whether or not
 the patient actually was able to sign at the time of illness, gave
 appropriate "public notice" of the lack of an employer-employee relationship
 between hospital and resident physicians.  [see:  [Roberts v. Galen of
 Virginia, Inc., 111 F.3d 405 (United States Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit,
 April 9, 1997; case no. 96-5298)].