Health Law Daily Wrap Up, EMTALA—E.D.N.Y.: Patient unsuccessful in asserting ADA, EMTALA, and civil rights claims against hospital, NYSDHR, (Aug 21, 2026)

By Jeffrey H. Brochin, J.D.

The pro se complaint—filed against hospital, hospital staff, the NYSDHR, and NYSDHR administration—contained time-barred claims, insufficient evidence, and procedural issues.

A federal District Court in New York has dismissed the widespread claims brought by a Patient who alleged that South Shore University Hospital (Hospital) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 based on her treatment at the Hospital in November 2020. Her Complaint also included claims for “Fraud Upon the Court,” defamation, perjury, negligence, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, she also moved to vacate the judgement of the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) which had dismissed her claims that the Hospital subjected her to discriminatory practices in a public accommodation (Frazier v. South Shore University Hospital, No. 2:26-cv-04450-AMD-LGD (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2026)).

Basis for NYSDHR complaint. The Patient, who described herself as a “pregnant and permanently disabled woman,” alleged that she was “repeatedly mistreated at South Shore University Hospital, including being left unattended during a mini-stroke, being forced out of the hospital by armed guards, miscarrying weeks later, and being handed her miscarried baby in a cup.” She further claimed that she discovered that the Hospital “placed false and defamatory statements in her medical records,” including claims that she was “threatening or aggressive” and “that medications were administered when they were not.” The statements purportedly ‘harmed her reputation and affected her treatment at other hospitals.’

NYSDHR ruling. On November 18, 2020, the Patient filed a complaint with the NYSDHR, alleging that the Hospital subjected her to discriminatory practices in a public accommodation. The ALJ held a hearing on October 23 and 24, 2024, at which time the Patient alleged that the Hospital submitted “forged documents to the judge in [her] Human Rights case,” and that during the hearing, “multiple hospital witnesses committed perjury.” On November 21, 2025, the ALJ issued a Recommended Findings of Fact, Opinion and Decision, and Order dismissing the complaint, which was later upheld by the NYSDHR Commissioner in a final order. The Patient then filed the instant lawsuit, pro se, and seeking in forma pauperis status, in federal District Court seeking, among other things, to vacate the NYSDHR dismissal.

Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court noted that under the Eleventh Amendment, not only are states immune from being sued in federal court (with few exceptions) but that such immunity further extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state. Because courts have repeatedly recognized that the NYSDHR is an arm of the state for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, any claim for damages asserted against the NYSDHR or its staff is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and is dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, the Patient’s claims against the NYSDHR and its staff were dismissed.

Section 1983 claims against the Hospital. The court next turned to the Patient’s Section 1983 claims. Section 1983 provides in relevant part that ‘every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.’ However, to state a claim under Section 1983, the Patient had to allege: (1) that the challenged conduct was ‘committed by a person acting under color of state law’; and (2) that such conduct deprived her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Here, because the Hospital was a private hospital, neither the hospital nor its employees were state actors for purposes of Section 1983, her Section 1983 claims against them were therefore dismissed.

Sections 1985 and 1986 claims. To state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), the Patient needed to show: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. In order to maintain an action under Section 1985, the Patient had to provide some factual basis supporting a meeting of the minds, such that the Hospital and its employees entered into an agreement, express or tacit, to achieve the unlawful end.

Because the Complaint only alleged that the Patient “observed behavior consistent with coercion and conspiracy”, this was not a pleading of facts to support her conspiracy claim, and therefore her Section 1985 claims against the Hospital and its employees was dismissed. Her Section 1986 claim was also dismissed because ‘without a viable claim for relief under § 1985, the Patient could not establish a violation of § 1986, because as the court observed, ‘a claim under section 1986 lies only if there is a viable conspiracy claim under section 1985.’

ADA Claims. The court interpreted the Patient’s Complaint as making a claim under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities ‘in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.’ Hospitals are considered public accommodations for the purposes of the ADA. However, even assuming the Patient was a qualified individual under the ADA, her Complaint did not include sufficient factual allegations to support a claim that the Hospital or any of its employees discriminated against her by denying her ‘a full and equal opportunity to enjoy the services’ the Hospital provides. Moreover, the only available remedy for a claim under Title III is injunctive relief, not monetary damages, and here, the Patient sought only monetary damages. Accordingly, the Patient’s ADA claim was also dismissed.

EMTALA’s statute of limitations. EMTALA provides a cause of action to any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital’s violation of the Act. However, no action under EMTALA may be brought more than two years after the date of the violation. The Patient alleged that the Hospital did not properly screen or stabilize her on November 16, 2020, and she asserted that she had a miscarriage on January 6, 2021. However, regardless of which date formed the basis for her EMTALA claim, she did not file suit until July 2026, which was beyond the statute of limitations. Her EMTALA claim was accordingly dismissed.

Remaining claims. As to her ‘perjury claim’, the court ruled that there is no private right of action for perjury and therefore that claim was dismissed. Her remaining claims were deemed to be claims brought pursuant to state law, and here, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Regarding her Motion to Vacate the NYSDHR ruling, the court did not have the authority to grant that motion, because the agency’s order was appealable only in New York State court.

Based on the foregoing, the court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days, but further directed her to the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project for further assistance.

The case is No. 2:26-cv-04450-AMD-LGD.

Judge: Donnelly, A.

Attorneys: Cinquetta M. Frazier, pro se. Frazier. Olivia Orlando-Donovan (Ogletree Deakins, PC) for South Shore University Hospital (Northwell Health).

Companies: South Shore University Hospital

Cases: CaseDecisions EMTALANews GeneralNews ReproductiveHealthCareNews NewYorkNews