How cited: McClure v. Parvis · Go Syfert

McClure v. Parvis (2018)

green · 11 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · M.D. Penn. · 2 citations in this opinion
Ct. 2001) (holding that “constructive notice must be imposed when the failure … is caused by the absence of supervision.”). 73 McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 329 (E.D.
green Benson v. BBH WBMC LLC (2025)
Quote Authority · N.D. Ala. · signal: see
See McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 326 (E.D.
“Symptoms like vomiting and vision problems, in isolation, may not constitute an emergency medical condition.”
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
In order “to state an EMTALA failure-to-screen claim, the plaintiff must allege that: (1) the patient had an emergency medical condition; and (2) the hospital did not screen the patient in the same way it screens other patients presenting with similar symptoms.” McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 324 (E.D.
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible failure to screen claim under EMTALA. 28 To state a claim that Defendant failed to properly screen a patient under requirements of 1 EMTALA, Plaintiff must allege that: “(1) the patient had an emergency medical condition; and (2) 2 the hospital did not screen the patient in the same way it screens other patients presenting with 3 similar symptoms.” McClure v. Parvis, 294 F.Supp.3d 318, 324 (E.D Pa. 2018).
green FOSTER v. KLASKO (2020)
Cited · D.N.J. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See McClure, 294 F. Supp. 3d at 325 (citing Brooks v. Maryland Gen.
Cited (see also) · E.D. Pa. · signal: see also
Id. (quoting Thompson, 591 A.2d at 707 ); see also McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 327 (E.D.
corporate negligence can also attach “to certain non-hospital entities” such as HMOs and nursing homes
Cited (see also) · E.D. Pa. · signal: see also
See Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., 57 A.3d 582, 604-06 (Pa. 2012); see also McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 326-29 (E.D.
Savage J.
green FOSTER v. KLASKO (2020)
Cited (see also) · D.N.J. · signal: see also
Arkadelphia, 91 F.3d 1132, 1138 (8th Cir. 1996)); see also McClure v. Parvis, 294 F. Supp. 3d 318, 324 (E.D.
explaining that “to state an EMTALA failure-to-screen claim, the plaintiff must allege that: (1) the patient had an emergency medical condition; and (2) the hospital did not screen the patient in the same way it screens other patients presenting with similar symptoms”
Cited · W.D. Tex. · signal: see
See McClure v. Parvis , 294 F.Supp.3d 318 , 322-23 (E.D.
holding that patient's EMTALA screening-delay and negligence claims both survived though defendant hospital correctly diagnosed patient