If he shows up in a hospital, for whatever reason, they are obligated to make sure he is OK. There is nothing else the hospital can do. Who sent him there? Ever aspirate lake water? Ever have negative pressure pulmonary edema?
If the hospital did nothing, sent him home and the kid died from something he aspirated, are they not going to be sued?
Did the hospital direct that the kid be taken to their ER?
Things always look clear through the 180 degree retrospectoscope after the event, to people that have no freaking idea what legal liabilities are faced by those actually involved in patient care. If his Mom didn’t order the ‘battery of tests’ and the kid died or suffered injury, legally it doesn’t matter...they are still potentially liable in a court of law.
Who do I think should pay the bill? Not the hospital who was doing their LEGALLY mandated diligence, and protecting themselves as appropriate. Unless the hospital coerced whomever to bring the kid to the hospital so they could rip him off, they were only doing their job.
Why don’t you re-write the expected article headline if they had done nothing, sent to local hero home, and the kid then died. Go ahead...I’d like to see it. Also, try to estimate for me what the likely lawsuit would have been settled for.
You know how many bad germs are floating around you? If you don't go to the hospital now, you might die next week.
There was no need to send the kid to the hospital. He could have been checked out at the scene by the EMT. The article didn’t say he aspirated lake water. It said he swallowed lake water.