LEE SZYMBORSKI V. SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT CTR, No. 16-15247 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEE E. SZYMBORSKI, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-15247 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00889-GMNCWH v. SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT CENTER; DARRYL DUBROCA, in his official capacity, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Lee E. Szymborski appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review de novo. Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Szymborski’s EMTALA claim because Szymborski failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his son sought care from a hospital with an emergency department or was discharged after coming to an emergency room. See Bryant, 289 F.3d at 1165-66, 1168 (discussing requirements for an EMTALA claim, holding that “EMTALA’s stabilization requirement ends when an individual is admitted for inpatient care,” and observing that EMTALA “was not enacted to establish a federal medical malpractice cause of action”); James v. Sunrise Hosp., 86 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1996) (EMTALA’s transfer provision applies only when an individual “comes to the emergency room”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a)-(c) (setting out medical screening, stabilizing treatment, and discharge obligations). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Szymborski’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15247

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.