Weller v. NYU Langone Health System, 1:23-cv-08056

Background

Dr. Alexander Weller, a part-time hospitalist at NYU Langone Brooklyn, was terminated shortly after reporting what he believed was an EMTALA violation when NYU Langone canceled an internal patient transfer.
Weller argued the canceled transfer of a patient from NYU Brooklyn to NYU Tisch (both part of NYU Langone) violated EMTALA, which regulates patient transfers between hospitals.
Weller repeatedly raised his EMTALA concerns to NYU Langone officials and subsequently reported the alleged violation to federal and state authorities.
NYU Langone terminated Weller’s employment two days after he informed the hospital he had reported the alleged EMTALA violation.
Weller sued for retaliation under EMTALA’s whistleblower provision (and five state claims), which defendants moved to dismiss.
The court proceeded on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, focusing on the sufficiency of the federal EMTALA claim before declining to exercise jurisdiction over state claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does EMTALA's whistleblower protection apply even if no actual statutory violation occurred?	Weller claimed EMTALA protects employees who make good faith, reasonable reports of suspected violations.	NYU argued the statute protects only reports of actual violations, not reasonable mistakes.	No; EMTALA requires an actual violation to trigger whistleblower protections.
Was there an EMTALA-covered hospital transfer (i.e., inter-hospital) between NYU Brooklyn and NYU Tisch?	Weller argued NYU Brooklyn and NYU Tisch are separate hospitals, so the EMTALA transfer rules apply.	NYU argued both facilities are campuses of the same hospital, so no EMTALA “transfer” occurred.	No: NYU Brooklyn and NYU Tisch are part of one hospital under EMTALA, so transfer rules did not apply.
Did the factual allegations sufficiently plead an EMTALA violation regarding the patient’s care/discharge?	Weller alleged the patient was not stabilized before being kept at NYU Brooklyn or discharged.	NYU argued the complaint lacked factual detail of an unstabilized discharge and the patient’s outcome contradicted Weller’s claims.	No; the complaint lacked detail and did not plausibly allege a violation.
Should the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim?	Weller implicitly sought continued jurisdiction.	NYU moved to dismiss the entire case, including state claims.	No; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing EMTALA claims.

Key Cases Cited

Hardy v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 164 F.3d 789 (2d Cir. 1999) (defining EMTALA’s purpose and scope in combatting patient dumping)
Anna Jacques Hosp. v. Burwell, 797 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (hospitals with multiple campuses can be a single entity under the Medicare Act)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims under Rule 12(b)(6))
St. Anthony Hosp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 309 F.3d 680 (10th Cir. 2002) (EMTALA requirements for accepting transferred patients)
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) (presumption that a statutory term carries the same meaning throughout a statute)