or not an emergency medical condition ... exists.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a). If the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must either stabilize the medical condition or transfer the individual to another medical facility in accordance with the EMTALA’s transfer provisions. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b)(l). Thus, if the hospital does not stabilize the emergency medical condition and the hospital transfers the patient, the hospital must then comply with the transfer restrictions of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(2). 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(l). However, the EMTALA’s requirements end once a patient is admitted to the hospital. Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). Here questions of material fact exist as to
holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations holding that emtalas stabilization requirement ends when an individual is admitted for inpatient care congress enacted emtala to create a new cause of action generally unavailable under state tort law for what amounts to failure to treat and not to duplicate preexisting legal protections  holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent holding that federal issues interposed as a defense generally do not create a cause of action arising under federal law recognizing the authority of each state to create protections for its citizens which might not be required under the federal concept