Mylissa Farmer sued the University of Kansas Hospital Authority in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) for failure to screen and stabilize her condition, and discrimination under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD). The defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
From the outset, the court recognized the politically charged nature of this case in a notable footnote. The court acknowledged that while the case technically centered on EMTALA and state discrimination law, the parties’ filings suggested they viewed the case through a broader lens. In a preemptive move to maintain focus on the legal issues, the court specifically cautioned the parties against using “excessively dramatic and bombastic rhetoric” in future filings, noting that such approaches would be viewed unfavorably as they are “counterproductive to the just and efficient resolution of this case.”
Factual Overview
Farmer was 17 weeks pregnant when she experienced premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) on August 2, 2022. After being turned away from a Missouri hospital due to the state’s abortion ban, she sought care at the defendant’s hospital in Kansas. Upon arrival, the hospital allegedly performed some screening but failed to take her temperature or conduct a pain assessment as required by their protocols. According to the Complaint, Dr. Leslie Dunmire initially recommended pregnancy termination due to health risks but later declined to provide treatment, citing the political climate surrounding a Kansas abortion ballot measure. The hospital allegedly discharged Farmer after two hours without providing treatment, monitoring, or preventative antibiotics. Farmer ultimately obtained care in Illinois but alleged she suffered complications due to the delay in treatment.
Legal Analysis
EMTALA Failure to Screen: The court rejected the defendant’s argument that conducting some screening and reaching a correct diagnosis satisfied EMTALA requirements. The court held that EMTALA requires hospitals to follow their own uniformly applied screening procedures, and Farmer adequately alleged the hospital deviated from these procedures.
EMTALA Failure to Stabilize: The court found Farmer plausibly alleged an emergency medical condition under EMTALA’s risk-based definition, rejecting the hospital’s argument that her condition was not yet unstable. The court determined that Farmer adequately alleged the hospital failed to provide sufficient treatment to prevent her condition from deteriorating.
KAAD Discrimination: The court rejected the hospital’s argument that pregnancy discrimination is not prohibited under KAAD. The court found that while earlier case law expressed approval of Supreme Court decisions finding pregnancy discrimination permissible, subsequent Kansas regulations explicitly prohibited such discrimination.
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Farmer’s allegations, when assumed true, stated plausible claims for relief under both EMTALA and KAAD.
Schrag on Law 