When a hospital hands you an Against Medical Advice (AMA) form, it is supposed to document your voluntary choice to leave before the care team feels it is safe. In law and ethics, that signature is only valid if it is informed and free of coercion. If staff threaten, intimidate, or withhold property to make you sign, the paper is worthless—and their conduct can cross the line from civil negligence into criminal territory.
What an AMA Form Is (and Isn’t)
-
Purpose: A contemporaneous note that a competent adult decided—on their own—to refuse further care despite being told the risks.
-
Myth: “Once you sign AMA the hospital is off the hook.”
-
Reality: An AMA form is not a liability waiver. Courts routinely let malpractice suits proceed when the underlying care was sub-standard or the refusal wasn’t truly voluntary.
Consent Must Be Voluntary
Florida follows the general rule of contract and medical-consent law: any signature obtained by duress, fraud, undue influence, or threat is voidable.
-
Coercion examples
-
Withholding personal property until the patient signs.
-
Threatening legal penalties (“$10 000 HIPAA fine!”).
-
Surrounding the patient with security guards to intimidate them.
-
-
Legal effect: The AMA document can’t be used to bar a malpractice claim, because the patient never gave free informed refusal.
Statutes a Forced AMA Can Trigger
| Statute | What It Covers | How a Coerced AMA Might Violate It |
|---|---|---|
| § 836.05 Fla. Stat. – Extortion/Coercion (FELONY) | Threatening injury to person or property to force someone to act. | “Sign this AMA if you want your phone and laptop back. – Security says (What laptop after confiscating it!)” |
| § 812.014 – Theft | Depriving someone of property, even temporarily. | Confiscating phone/laptop as leverage. |
| § 784.03 – Battery & § 784.011 – Assault | Unwanted touching / threats creating fear. | Snatching the phone, a looming 3-person security presence in a small room. |
| § 918.13 – Evidence Tampering | Destroying or hiding evidence relevant to a case. | Deleting recordings/photos of poor care. |
| § 395.1041 – Florida “Anti-Dumping” | Requires stabilization before discharge; mirrors EMTALA. | Kicking out an unstable cardiac patient under a sham AMA because he wanted treatment that didn’t deviate from the standard of care that saves lives |
Violations can yield misdemeanor or felony charges, civil damages, and facility fines.
Federal Overlay: EMTALA & Civil Rights
-
EMTALA (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd): A patient with an emergency condition must be stabilized before discharge—even if an AMA is signed. If the “refusal” is hospital-initiated or coerced, regulators deem it an illegal dump.
-
CMS Conditions of Participation / 45 C.F.R. §482.13: Hospitals must let patients voice grievances free from reprisal. Retaliatory AMA discharges can jeopardize Medicare funding.
Practical Takeaways
-
Document everything. Note names, times, threats, and keep copies of discharge papers.
-
The patient rescinded. Returning to the ER revokes the AMA; the hospital must screen and stabilize you. Security continued to interfere with checking in, lying that I had dismissed myself. To get away from the Security that had just lied, and participated in an attack on me, confiscated my belongings,. I walked towards the doors, where Security continued to walk me off the property rather than letting me go outside until I could be seen by the ER to get away from the people that were trying very hard to harm me. I just wanted to get away from the interference caused by security during the ER check-in process. Security assumed the coerced AMA was still in effect, after trying to get checked in, and forced me to the other side of the street, preventing me from being seen again in the ER simply because I wanted space between myself and security. I called an Uber to get home, and had an ambulance take me to Morton Plant.
-
Report retaliation. File complaints with the Florida AHCA, the Joint Commission, and HHS OCR.
Bottom Line
An AMA form is meaningful only when a patient freely chooses to walk out. Using threats or confiscating property to force a signature turns a hospital’s shield into its sword—exposing staff and the facility to extortion, battery, theft, evidence-tampering, EMTALA penalties, and malpractice liability. Patients have a right to safe, respectful care and to speak up when it’s denied. If that right is trampled, the law is on their side.
Subject: Multi-Faceted Medical Negligence Resulting in Cardiac, Neurological, and Renal Harm
🔷 1. Deliberate Misuse of a Blood Pressure Cuff Following PCI-Induced Heart Attack
Following my cardiac procedure on May 27, 2025—during which a kinked artery triggered a Type 4a myocardial infarction—I was wheeled directly out of the procedure room and received no stabilization or post-infarct monitoring.
Rather than initiating standard post-MI protocols (such as serial troponins, IV fluids, EKG monitoring, or imaging), medical staff applied a manual blood pressure cuff to my arm with enough pressure to completely occlude circulation. This decision was justified by a claim that I had a “significant hematoma.”
However:
-
I photographed my arm immediately before the cuff was applied, and no hematoma is visible.
-
Staff inflated the cuff until my pulse oximeter flatlined, then backed off just enough to get a minimal oxygen reading—while leaving the cuff in place for up to 10 minutes.
As a result:
-
I suffered visible vascular trauma including burst capillaries, bruising, and persistent discoloration.
-
I have not regained full sensation in my palm, strongly suggesting permanent nerve or circulatory damage.
The justification for this action was either exaggerated or fabricated. It served no therapeutic purpose and caused measurable harm. I assert that this was not only a violation of standard post-procedure care but a deliberate aggravation of injury while I was in the midst of a known cardiac crisis.
🔷 2. Fabricated Hematoma Diagnosis to Justify Ischemic Injury
Medical staff later claimed that my arm looked “puffy” and used this to defend the application of the overly tight cuff. However, I was undergoing a procedure-induced heart attack, confirmed by troponin levels escalating beyond 8,000–10,000 ng/L, indicating massive cardiac tissue death.
At those levels, and in the presence of fentanyl and morphine administration, systemic inflammation and mild limb swelling are expected. This is a normal physiological response, not a hematoma—which requires localized tension, discoloration, and distortion, none of which were present or documented.
Therefore, invoking “puffiness” as justification for arterial occlusion via cuff inflation is medically invalid, and may represent willful deception to obscure the mishandling of my care following the PCI complication.
🔷 3. Gross Negligence in Renal Care for a Solitary Kidney Patient
A further compounding issue is that I have only one kidney, a fact clearly documented in my medical record.
Despite this, I was subjected to multiple contrast dye exposures—not only during the PCI, but across several imaging tests over my hospital stay. Yet I was never given continuous IV fluids to flush the dye and protect my kidney.
-
I was only connected to a slow heparin drip, which does not provide hydration or serve nephroprotective purposes.
-
I repeatedly requested IV fluids to flush my kidney and prevent contrast-induced nephropathy, but those requests were ignored until I threatemted legal action.
-
No nephrology consult was initiated.
-
Urine output was not meaningfully tracked, and there was no post-dye renal monitoring.
This failure is a direct violation of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) and American College of Cardiology guidelines, which clearly define the fluid management needed for patients with compromised renal anatomy undergoing contrast exposure.
The lack of hydration placed my only remaining kidney at direct risk of injury or failure—and I had to advocate for myself to receive even the most basic preventative care.
🔷 Conclusion
Taken together, these events reflect a systemic pattern of neglect, misrepresentation, and avoidable harm:
-
I was given no proper post-MI care following a procedure-induced infarct.
-
I was assaulted with a non-therapeutic blood pressure cuff application justified by a false claim of hematoma.
-
My single kidney was placed in jeopardy due to repeated contrast use and complete disregard for renal protocols.
-
These actions were taken while I was in a medicated, medically vulnerable state, leaving me unable to protect myself or ensure proper care was provided.
I assert that the combination of these factors constitutes gross medical negligence, reckless endangerment, and potentially criminal abuse of a vulnerable patient.
