With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: recognizing the cause of action
B: holding plain language compelled that reading
C: holding plain language of act provides cause of action only against participating hospitals
D: recognizing cause of action
C.