Introduction

Fonte v. Memorial Hospital of Laramie County is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, handed down on May 5, 2025. Christopher Fonte, proceeding pro se, sued Memorial Hospital (also doing business as Cheyenne Regional Medical Center) and unnamed hospital employees under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and for state tort causes of action—medical negligence and negligence per se. Fonte’s suit arose after he was refused emergency treatment following a serious automobile accident because he declined to wear a COVID-19 mask. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to comply with Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act (WGCA) notice-of-claim requirement. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that EMTALA claims, like state tort claims, are subject to WGCA’s pre-suit notice rules unless those rules directly conflict with EMTALA’s mandates.

Summary of the Judgment

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The panel first confirmed that Memorial Hospital is a “governmental entity” under WGCA. It then held that all three of Fonte’s claims—the EMTALA count, medical negligence, and negligence per se—fall within WGCA’s scope and therefore require compliance with the Act’s two-year notice-of-claim provision (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113). Turning to EMTALA, the court applied the statute’s limited preemption clause (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(f)) and concluded that EMTALA does not conflict with WGCA’s notice requirement. Rather, EMTALA’s directive to apply “the damages available for personal injury under the law of the State” (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A)) incorporates state notice prerequisites. Because Fonte never served the requisite itemized written notice, his claims were time-barred and properly dismissed with prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) – Pro se pleadings construed liberally.
• Sagome, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 56 F.4th 931 (10th Cir. 2023) – Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review.
• State Dep’t of Corr. v. Watts, 177 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2008) – WGCA as a “closed-ended” tort claims act.
• Casey v. Teton Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 517 P.3d 536 (Wyo. 2022) – Pre-suit procedures under WGCA are mandatory.
• Elsner v. Campbell Cnty. Hosp. Dist., — P.3d —, 2025 WL 984398 (Wyo. Apr. 2, 2025) – Hospital exceptions under WGCA.
• Hardy v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 164 F.3d 789 (2d Cir. 1999) – EMTALA supplements but does not supplant state tort law; state notice of claim not preempted.
• Texas v. Becerra, 89 F.4th 529 (5th Cir. 2024) – Conflicts preemption standard under § 1395dd(f).
• Draper v. Chiapuzio, 9 F.3d 1391 (9th Cir. 1993) – Oregon’s notice requirement deemed compatible with EMTALA.
• Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963) – Preemption and direct-conflict analysis.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by identifying the WGCA’s coverage: a broad waiver of sovereign immunity for state and local government torts, subject to strict pre-suit notice and filing deadlines (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-113, 1-39-114). The panel held that WGCA applies not only to state-law torts (medical negligence and negligence per se) but also to EMTALA claims—because EMTALA directs courts to apply “the damages available for personal injury under the law of the State” (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A)) and contains only a limited preemption clause ( § 1395dd(f)). Under traditional conflict-preemption principles (Hines; Fla. Lime), a state requirement can stand so long as it does not make compliance with federal law impossible or obstruct Congress’s objectives. The court found no direct conflict: WGCA’s notice requirement simply delays suit and does not impede hospitals’ EMTALA duties or patients’ access to federal remedies. Hence, EMTALA’s remedial framework incorporates state notice prerequisites for suits seeking state-law damages.

Impact

Fonte v. Memorial Hospital clarifies that in Wyoming, plaintiffs bringing EMTALA claims must comply with WGCA’s notice-of-claim procedures. More broadly, the decision underscores that federal statutes which borrow state tort remedies (through reference to state damages law) may incorporate state procedural conditions. Litigants and practitioners nationwide should note that analogous state notice statutes might apply to federal health-care statutes or other federal causes of action where Congress has “supplemented, but not supplanted,” state law. Courts assessing preemption must closely examine statutory text, including limited preemption clauses, before discarding long-standing state procedural rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

EMTALA

A federal statute requiring Medicare‐participating hospitals to screen and stabilize emergency patients, filling a gap where state tort law traditionally offered no such duty.

WGCA Notice-of-Claim

A mandatory written notice, served within two years of the incident, outlining the factual basis and damages sought against any Wyoming government entity before suing.

Direct Conflict Preemption

A test asking whether it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law or whether the state law frustrates Congress’s purpose.

Condition Precedent vs. Jurisdictional

WGCA’s notice requirement is a condition precedent—failure to satisfy it bars the suit—but it does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Fonte v. Memorial Hospital establishes a significant precedent: Wyoming’s WGCA notice requirements bind both state tort and EMTALA claims unless Congress expressly preempts them. The Tenth Circuit’s careful preemption analysis reaffirms that federal statutes which incorporate state remedies may carry state procedural prerequisites. For practitioners, the case is a reminder to verify and satisfy all applicable state notice and filing rules—even when pursuing federal causes of action like EMTALA—to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.