Whether, when determining if a hospital has complied with the "appropriate medical screening" requirement of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the court should hold that liability attaches independent of the defendant's motivation, as five circuits have held, or impose the requirement of malicious intent found only in the Sixth Circuit's cases and questioned by this Court.

Whether the court should hold that liability under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act attaches independent of the defendant's motivation, or impose the requirement of malicious intent found only in the Sixth Circuit's cases