Lee E. Szymborski v. SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT CENTER; DARRYL DUBROCA, in his official capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEE E. SZYMBORSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT
CENTER; DARRYL DUBROCA, in his
official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15247
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00889-GMN-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15247
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 of 2 --