Claire J. Lee v. Hennepin County, No. 15-3856 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3856 ___________________________ Claire J. Lee lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Hennepin County; Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., doing business as Hennepin County Medical Center lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: March 3, 2017 Filed: March 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Claire J. Lee appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).2 Viewing the summary judgment record in a light most favorable to Lee, and drawing all inferences in her favor, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment to defendants was warranted. See Star City Sch. Dist. v. ACI Bldg. Sys., LLC, 844 F.3d 1011, 1017 (8th Cir. 2017) (de novo review); Hunt ex rel. Hunt v. Lincoln County Mem’l Hosp., 317 F.3d 891, 893 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements of EMTALA claim). We find no merit to Lee’s arguments concerning discovery and unfair treatment by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we also deny Lee’s motion for sanctions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 Lee raised other claims under federal and state law which she has abandoned. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claim is abandoned where appellant fails to brief this court on why dismissal was improper). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
