The Virginian-Pilot
                             THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Tuesday, December 13, 1994             TAG: 9412130282
SECTION: LOCAL                    PAGE: B9   EDITION: FINAL 
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS 
DATELINE: RICHMOND                           LENGTH: Short :   44 lines

$5 MILLION MALPRACTICE JUDGMENT MUST BE REDUCED, JUDGES RULE

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a $5 million malpractice judgment against Arlington Hospital exceeded a limit imposed by Virginia legislators.

A 1976 state law caps malpractice awards at $1 million.

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the $5 million verdict won by Susan Power. The judges returned the case to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III with orders to impose the cap.

Power, who lives in England, came to the Arlington Hospital emergency room Feb. 24, 1990, complaining of pain in her hip, abdomen, back and leg. She was given a prescription for pain medication, then discharged.

She returned the next day in shock. She was admitted and remained in intensive care for four months. Both legs had to be amputated below the knee, she went blind in one eye and suffered permanent lung damage.

Eventually, Power's illness was diagnosed as a blood infection. Testimony showed that tests that would have led to that diagnosis were not conducted on her first visit to the emergency room.

Power claimed in her lawsuit that Arlington Hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 by failing to provide her an ``appropriate medical screening.'' The jury found in Power's favor, and the appeals court agreed.

But the appeals panel disagreed with Ellis' ruling that the state-mandated malpractice cap did not apply to Power's federal claim. The court said Congress has directed the courts to look to state law to determine what damages are available in an action brought under the federal statute.

Judges H. Emory Widener Jr. and Karen J. Williams joined in the majority opinion.

Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin III dissented. He said the court held in a previous case that the federal law was not intended to be used as a substitute for a state malpractice action.

KEYWORDS: APPEAL LAWSUIT MALPRACTICE by CNB