Sixth Circuit Cleland v Bronson EMTALA Challenge
A Sixth Circuit EMTALA appeal challenging the misuse of Cleland v. Bronson to dismiss failure-to-screen claims — and what it means for patients’ federal rights.
Introduction
When Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), it created a clear, enforceable right: every patient who arrives at a hospital emergency department is entitled to an appropriate medical screening examination. Yet, across the Sixth Circuit, that right has been eroded by an expanding misapplication of Cleland v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. — a 1992 decision that courts have stretched far beyond its original facts to dismiss legitimate failure-to-screen claims before they ever reach a jury.
Our case asks the Sixth Circuit to confront that drift directly. At its core, this appeal challenges whether Cleland’s judicially crafted standard can be used to override EMTALA’s plain statutory text — and whether patients who were denied the screening Congress guaranteed them can be turned away from court on grounds the statute itself does not authorize.
The answer has consequences not just for us, as plaintiffs, but for every patient in the circuit who walks through an emergency room door and relies on federal law to protect them.
In the Eastern District of Tennessee, the District Court advanced our state and EMTALA claims without having issued a summons so all defendants could be served. It then manufactured a tolling date based on a document it did not have access to. After disposing of the state claims using its made up tolling date, the Court advanced the EMTALA claims into discovery.
We either had to comply with the Joint Discovery Plan schedule the Court imposed on us, or lose our EMTALA case. After we created the Joint Discovery Plan, the Court then used Cleland v Bronson to dismiss our screening claim. It then classified our failure to stabilize and failure to transfer claims under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, then applying its made up tolling date to those claims, thereby dismissing our claims without defendants ever having to turn over evidence that would have supported their “adequate care” claims.
Cleland’s “improper motive” is not in the EMTALA text, therefore, we are challenging it’s use to dismiss our screening claim, as one of other key issues on appeal. Please scroll down to see our overview of what we are appealing. It’s Docket 98 (Case No. 3:24-cv-00382).
25-5868 U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
The District Court is slow-walking our access to the Court of Appeals by refusing to rule on our in forma pauperis motion.
This case is on hold pending the lower court’s ruling of our in forma pauperis motion. We are waiting for either the writ to be decided, or the district court to decide on the IFP so we can move forward with our appeal.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Case Number 26-5171): This was docketed on March 3, 2026. We filed this because the district court has stalled a response to our in forma pauperis motion on appeal. The second federal case (3:25-cv-00516 removed by defendants from the state court) is following the same pattern as the original case followed. The writ has been applied to both cases.
Summary of What We Are Appealing
We created the summary as a response to the Magistrate’s recommendation that the presiding judge deny our IFP motion. Doc 98 is the summary and 99 is a correction.