Dones-Pabón v. Hosp. Auxilio Mutuo De P.R.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Writing for the Court: CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Decision Date: 11 May 2023
• Docket Number: CIVIL 20-1628 (CVR)
• Citation: Dones-Pabón v. Hosp. Auxilio Mutuo De P.R., CIVIL 20-1628 (CVR) (D. P.R. May 11, 2023)
• Parties: IRIS DELIA DONES-PABÓN Plaintiff, v. HOSPITAL AUXILIO MUTUO DE PUERTO RICO, INC., et al Defendants.

1

IRIS DELIA DONES-PABÓN Plaintiff, v. HOSPITAL AUXILIO MUTUO DE PUERTO RICO, INC., et al Defendants.

CIVIL No. 20-1628 (CVR)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

May 11, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

The present case arises out of a failed surgery to Plaintiff Iris Delia Dones-Pabón's (“Plaintiff”) right hand. On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed suit alleging that Defendants Dr. Ian C. Marrero-Arocho (“Co-defendant Dr. Marrero”) and Hospital Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Co-defendant Auxilio Mutuo” collectively “Defendants”) incurred in medical malpractice and claimed damages for their negligent acts performed during said surgery. (Docket No. 1). On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 4, Exhibit 1).^[1]

Co-defendant Dr. Marrero and Co-defendant Auxilio Mutuo filed separate Answers to the First Amended Complaint on April 28, 2021, and May 5, 2021, respectively. (Docket Nos. 11 and 12). On March 9, 2023, Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion for Summary Judgment”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Federal Rule 56”), in which they aver that diversity is lacking and that Plaintiff has failed to prove that her claim is worth more that the jurisdictional threshold amount. (Docket No. 19). On April 12, 2023 Plaintiff opposed Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 27). On May 1, 2023, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition. (Docket Nos. 33 and 34).

For the reasons explained below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background.

On November 14, 2019, following an accident at the Triple-A Gun Range, Plaintiff arrived at Co-defendant Auxilio Mutuo's Emergency Room for medical assistance regarding her right hand. (Docket No. 4, Attachment 1 at p. 2 and Docket No. 19 Exhibit 15 at p. 2). Once there, Plaintiff was examined by the medical staff and diagnosed with having a foreign body -a metal bullet fragment- lodged in her right hand. (Docket No. 4, Attachment 1 at p. 2). After taking X-rays of her right hand, Plaintiff was referred to Co-defendant Dr. Marrero, an orthopedic hand surgeon working with Co-defendant Auxilio Mutuo at the time, to schedule an appointment for evaluation. Id. at p. 3. Upon evaluating Plaintiff's file, Co-defendant Dr. Marrero scheduled ambulatory surgery for February 3, 2020, to remove the bullet fragment from her right hand. (Docket No. 11 at p. 3 and Docket No. 27, Exhibit 4 at p. 3).

Co-defendant Dr. Marrero did not order new X-rays of Plaintiff's right hand on the day of the surgery, but rather limited himself to studying the X-rays taken at the hospital approximately three (3) months prior to pinpoint the bullet fragment's location. (Docket No. 4, Attachment 1 at p. 3). Plaintiff was given a local anesthetic to numb her right hand, but she remained awake and conscious during the surgery. Id. Co-defendant Dr. Marrero proceeded to open the backside of Plaintiff's hand and “carve into the flesh and bones” using various “surgical instruments to look around for the metal [bullet] fragment.” Id. After several minutes, Co-defendant Dr. Marrero was unable to locate the bullet fragment and informed Plaintiff that the surgery was a failure. Id. Plaintiff avers that, upon her inquiry as to why Co-defendant Dr. Marrero did not perform additional X-rays of her hand prior to surgery, he allegedly stated that “it must have been ordered but he did not do it.” Id.

Plaintiff claims that, in the months following the surgery, she experienced “pain, discomfort, chills, panic, and severe pain in the intervened area.” Id. After various follow-up visits, a second surgery was scheduled and performed by Co-defendant Dr. Marrero on June 19, 2020, approximately four (4) months after Plaintiff's first failed surgery. (Docket No. 4, Attachment 1 at p. 4). Co-defendant Dr. Marrero requested this time new X-rays be taken of Plaintiff's right hand prior to surgery and subsequently removed the bullet fragment from Plaintiff's forearm, where it had seemingly migrated. Id; (Docket No. 4, Exhibit 1 at p. 7).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule 56, “[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense - or that part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment should only be considered by the Court when the moving party proves two things: (1) that “there is no genuine issue of material fact” and (2) that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656-57, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

Although the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and “draw[] all reasonable inferences in [their] favor”, Taite v. Bridgewater State Univ., Bd. of Tr., 999 F.3d 86, 92 (1st Cir. 2021) (citing Gerald v. Univ. of P.R., 707 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2013)), the nonmoving party must still prove material issues of fact exist that defeat summary judgment. See Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52-53 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[T]he nonmoving party ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the] pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue' of material fact as to each issue upon which he or she would bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial.” (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 (1986)).^[2]

The Court must then “determine whether a trial-worthy issue exists” by “look[ing] to all of the record materials on file, including the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits.” Ahmed v. Johnson, 752 F.3d 490, 495 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A); Johnson v. Univ. of P.R., 714 F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2013)). See also Lopez-Hernandez, 64 F.4th at 28 (“At summary judgment, ‘the judge's function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'” (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249); Theriault v. Genesis HealthCare LLC, 890 F.3d 342, 348 (1st Cir. 2018) (“‘The role of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings' and probe the proof to ascertain whether a need for trial exists.” (citing Kearney v. Town of Wareham, 316 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, summary judgment will not proceed if the Court deems the evidence “sufficiently open-ended [sic] to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the issue in favor of either side.” Ahmed, 752 F.3d at 495 (citing Gerald, 707 F.3d at 16).

Furthermore, “in a diversity action where there is no question of ripeness, mootness, or standing, the existence vel non of subject matter jurisdiction typically turns on two facts-diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.” Hernandez-Santiago v. Ecolab, Inc., 397 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Valentin v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332). In such instances, the courts may “rely on documentary evidence to establish whether jurisdiction attaches.” Padilla-Mangual v. Pavla Hosp., 516 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 500, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1959 (1984)). See also Hernandez-Santiago, 397 F.3d at 33 (“Where a party challenges the accuracy of the pleaded jurisdictional facts, the court may conduct a broad inquiry, taking evidence and making findings of fact.” (citing Valentin, 254 F.3d at 363)).

UNCONTESTED FACTS

Pursuant to the filings on the record, the Court finds the following facts to be uncontested.^[3]

1. Plaintiff Iris Delia Dones-Pabón lives and spends time in Kissimmee and in Puerto Rico.4 (Defense Exhibit 1a at l. 2-4; Docket No. 27, Exhibit 1, at p. 3, ¶ 1).^[4] 2. In Puerto Rico, Ms. Dones-Pabón lives in Toa Alta with her husband, Jose Dominicci, to whom she had been married since December 31, 2015. (Defense Exhibit 1a at l 5-17).

3. Ms. Dones-Pabón is married to Mr. Jose Dominicci without a prenuptial agreement, that is, under the joint legal partnership. (Defense Exhibit 2 at l. 513).

4. The house address in which Ms. Dones-Pabón lives in Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, is California Street #43, Urbanization Casablanca Toa Alta, P.R. 00953. (Defense Exhibit 1a at l. 18-23).

5. The Toa Alta residence is registered under the name of Ms. Dones-Pabón's husband. (Defense Exhibit 1a at l. 24; Defense Exhibit 1b at l. 1).

6. Ms. Dones-Pabón has lived in the Toa Alta residence since December 2014. (Defense Exhibit 1b at l. 5-8).

7. In Kissimmee, Ms. Dones-Pabón lived with her son in a rented property which neither she, nor her son owns. (Defense Exhibit 1b at l. 18-23).

8. Ms. Dones-Pabón's health insurance plan is provided exclusively by the Auxilio Mutuo Hospital, which she has had for a long time before the accident that occurred on November 14, 2019. (Docket No. 1 at p. 2; Docket No. 4 at p. 2; Defense Exhibit 3 at l. 23-24; Defense Exhibit 4 at l. 1-19).

9. All medical appointments and medical care that Ms. Dones-Pabón receives are received in Puerto Rico through the Auxilio Mutuo Associates' medical plan. (Defense Exhibit 4 at l. 20-24).

10. Ms. Dones-Pabón does not receive any medical care or treatment in Kissimmee or in the United States. (Defense Exhibit 5 at l. 1-4).

11. Ms. Dones-Pabón has several motor vehicles registered under her name in Puerto Rico. (Defense Exhibit 5 at l. 5-17).

12. Ms. Dones-Pabón has no motor vehicle registered under her name in Kissimmee. (Defense Exhibit 5 at l. 23-24; Defense Exhibit 6 at l. 1-2).

13. Ms. Dones-Pabón has a Puerto Rico driver's license and a Florida driver's license. (

...