Power v. Alexandria Phys Grp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 15, 1996
• Docket: 95-2280
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed: July 15, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2280 (CA-92-1288-A)

Susan M. Power,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Alexandria Physicians Group, Limited, et al,

Defendants - Appellees.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed July 3, 1996, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is cor- rected to read "Before ERVIN, Circuit Judge, PAYNE, United States

District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by

designation, and KELLAM,* Senior United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk UNPUBLISHED

SUSAN M. POWER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ALEXANDRIA PHYSICIANS GROUP, LIMITED; BENEDICT J. SEMMES, M.D., No. 95-2280 Defendants-Appellees,

and

ARLINGTON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-92-1288-A)

Argued: April 5, 1996 Decided: July 3, 1996

Before ERVIN, Circuit Judge, PAYNE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation, and KELLAM,* Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. _________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________

*Senior Judge Kellam heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). COUNSEL

ARGUED: John Mansfield Falk, THE FALK LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Edward Anthony Gonsalves, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: James H. Falk, Sr., James H. Falk, Jr., Robert K. Tomp- kins, THE FALK LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appel- lant. Gary Albert Godard, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Susan M. Power obtained a verdict in the amount of $5 million against Arlington Hospital Association under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA") in recompense for personal injuries Power sustained as a result of the hospital's failure to provide an appropriate screening examination within the meaning of EMTALA. Power v. Arlington Hospital Ass'n , 800 F. Supp. 1384 (E.D. Va. 1992) ("Power I"). While the verdict in Power I was on appeal to this court, Power instituted an action for malpractice against the hospital, the Alexandria Physicians Group, Limited and Dr. Bene- dict J. Semmes. Thereafter, this court decided Power I. Power v. Arlington Hospital Ass'n, 42 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 1994). As a result, the verdict of $5 million in Power I was reduced to $1 million.

Power then revived the dormant malpractice action and consented to the dismissal of the hospital as a defendant on the ground that it had been held liable already in Power I. The remaining defendants, Dr. Semmes and Alexandria Physicians Group, Limited, moved for dismissal contending that the $1 million EMTALA award in Power's favor in Power I constituted the entire amount recoverable by her

2 because of Virginia's $1 million medical malpractice cap. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.15 (Michie 1992). Power opposed dismissal on the theory that a second cap in the amount of $1 million was available in her malpractice action against Dr. Semmes and Alexandria Physicians Group, Limited. The district court, relying principally upon this court's decision in Power I, accepted the defendants' contention and granted their motion to dismiss the complaint in this action.

We have reviewed the district court's opinion, the record, the briefs and the contentions advanced by both parties at oral argument and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court on the reasoning of that court. Power v. Alexandria Phy- sicians Group, Limited, 887 F. Supp. 845 (E.D. Va. 1995).

AFFIRMED