of care and violated EMTALA, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, when they allegedly refused to accept transfer of Mrs. West as a patient to their facility. The Court addresses each claim in turn. A. EMTALA Claim ■ Plaintiffs assert that Defendants violated EMTALA when Dr. Huxol, acting on behalf of OMHS, allegedly refused to accept transfer of Mrs. West from Breekin-ridge Memorial to OMHS. Dr. Huxol contends he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ EMTALA claim because EMTALA does not authorize a private right of action against individuals. Both Defendants move for, summary judgment on the ground that there is an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact related to whether Dr. Huxol ever refuse (same); Delaney v. Cade, 986 F.2d 387, 393-94 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Baber v. Hosp, Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872,
holding plain language compelled that reading recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action holding plain language of act provides cause of action only against participating hospitals holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning