(9th Cir.1995); King v. Ahrens, 16 F.3d 265 (8th Cir.1994); Delaney v. Cade, 986 F.2d 387 (10th Cir.1993); Baber v. Hospital Corp. of America, 977 F.2d 872, 879 (4th Cir.1992); Gatewood v. Washington Healthcare Corp., 933 F.2d 1037 (D.C.Cir.1991). The statute’s legislative history makes it clear that, far from intending to allow patients to sue doctors, Congress intentionally limited patients to suits against hospitals. Baber, 977 F.2d at 877. It must also be noted that this particular district has upheld said analysis. See Alvarez Torres v. Hospital Ryder Memorial, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d 38, 40 (D.P.R.2004); Feliciano Rivera v. Medical & Geriatric Administrative Services, Inc., 254 F.Supp.2d 237 (D.P.R.2003); Medero Diaz v. Grupo De Empresas De Salud, 112 F.Supp.2d 222, 225 (D.P.R.2000) (<HOLDING>). In the instant ease there is no federal
holding that emtala does pot give patients a private cause of action against their physicians holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients holding that emtala does not allow private suits against physicians