C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER V—OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL-HEALTH CARE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER B—OIG AUTHORITIES › PART 1003—CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, ASSESSMENTS AND EXCLUSIONS › Subpart E—CMPs and Exclusions for EMTALA Violations

42 C.F.R. § 1003.500

Basis for civil money penalties and exclusions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The OIG may impose a penalty against any participating hospital with an emergency department or specialized capabilities or facilities for each negligent violation of section 1867 of the Act or § 489.24 (other than § 489.24(j)) of this title.

(b) The OIG may impose a penalty against any responsible physician for each—

(1) Negligent violation of section 1867 of the Act;

(2) Certification signed under section 1867(c)(l)(A) of the Act if the physician knew, or should have known, that the benefits of transfer to another facility did not outweigh the risks of such a transfer; or

(3) Misrepresentation made concerning an individual's condition or other information, including a hospital's obligations under section 1867 of the Act.

(c) The OIG may, in lieu of or in addition to any penalty available under this subpart, exclude any responsible physician who commits a gross and flagrant, or repeated, violation of this subpart from participation in Federal health care programs.

(d) For purposes of this subpart, a “gross and flagrant violation” is a violation that presents an imminent danger to the health, safety, or well-being of the individual who seeks examination and treatment or places that individual unnecessarily in a high-risk situation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: Marie Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hosp. Partners, 892 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marie Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hosp. Partners, 892 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2018). “42 C.F.R. § 1003.500 (a). Although EMTALA does not require violators to self-report instances of non-compliance, "[i]t should be considered a mitigating circumstance if a hospital took appropriate and timely corrective action in response to the violation.”
United States v. State of Idaho (D. Idaho 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 1395dd(d)(1)-(2); 42 C.F.R. §1003.500 (2017). Likewise, treating physicians who violate EMTALA face civil monetary penalties of up to $119,942 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.