## Facts

- Daniel L. Battle, Jr., a minor, became ill in December 1994 with fever and mouth sores and was treated by his pediatrician, Dr. Reeves, with antibiotics for an ear infection and tonsillitis.
- Two days later, Daniel’s condition deteriorated; his mother reported jaw clenching and seizure-like activity, called 911, and Daniel was taken to Memorial Hospital’s emergency department.
- In the emergency room, physicians evaluated Daniel, including performing a lumbar puncture that was interpreted as normal.
- Daniel in fact had viral encephalitis (allegedly herpes simplex encephalitis), resulting in catastrophic, permanent neurological injury.
- Daniel and his parents sued Memorial Hospital and treating physicians, alleging negligent failure to timely diagnose and treat encephalitis under Mississippi law and asserting an EMTALA claim against the hospital.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Memorial Hospital on the Mississippi tort claims as time-barred under a one-year limitations period.
- At trial, the court excluded deposition testimony from plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Fred Lakeman as unreliable former testimony given the circumstances of cross-examination.
- The court admitted plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Lowell Young’s videotaped deposition but barred plaintiffs from calling him live after a continuance.
- The court entered judgment as a matter of law for Memorial Hospital on the EMTALA claim at the close of plaintiffs’ case and entered judgment for the physician defendants on the remaining claims.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment properly dismissed the state-law claims against Memorial Hospital as barred by Mississippi’s statute of limitations.
2. Whether the hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the EMTALA claim, including whether the court could treat an oral motion as a Rule 50 motion.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Lakeman’s deposition and in admitting Dr. Young’s video deposition while precluding his live testimony.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- The court vacated the summary judgment dismissing the state-law claims against Memorial Hospital and remanded because the limitations analysis was erroneous under Mississippi law as applied to the hospital.
- The court affirmed judgment as a matter of law for Memorial Hospital on EMTALA, holding the oral motion was properly treated as a Rule 50 motion and the evidence did not support an EMTALA violation.
- The court affirmed the challenged evidentiary rulings regarding expert testimony and affirmed the defense judgment for the physician defendants and the professional group.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may treat a motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence as a Rule 50 motion when, in substance, it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; review of that procedural treatment is for abuse of discretion.
- EMTALA is not a federal medical malpractice statute; proof of misdiagnosis or negligent treatment, without evidence of disparate screening or departure from uniform screening/stabilization practices, does not establish an EMTALA violation.
- Evidentiary rulings on expert testimony, including admission of deposition testimony and limits on witness presentation, are reviewed for abuse of discretion and warrant reversal only if they affect substantial rights.
- Summary judgment based on a state statute of limitations requires correct identification and application of the governing state limitations provisions to the defendant’s status and the claims asserted.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs’ evidence did not support an EMTALA screening or stabilization violation and upheld the trial court’s key expert-evidence management, but it revived the state-law claims against the hospital because the limitations bar was incorrectly applied, remanding those claims for further proceedings.


Battle v. Memorial Hosp. at Gulfport, 228 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 2000)