Doe v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp.

Decision Date09 September 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–P–1998.,13–P–1998.
Citation88 Mass.App.Ct. 289,36 N.E.3d 1258
PartiesJane DOE & another v. BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

88 Mass.App.Ct. 289
36 N.E.3d 1258

Jane DOE & another1
v.
BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION.

No. 13–P–1998.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued May 6, 2015.
Decided Sept. 9, 2015.


36 N.E.3d 1259

Matthew W. Perkins, Quincy, for the plaintiffs.

Joseph A. King (Kevin M. Sullivan with him), Boston, for the defendant.

Present: RUBIN, BROWN, & MALDONADO, JJ.

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The plaintiffs, Jane and John Doe, filed an amended complaint for negligent supervision and loss of consortium, arising out of an assault on Jane by Boston Medical Center Corporation (hospital) interpreter Thomas Consoli. A Superior Court judge entered summary judgment in favor of the hospital. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.

1. Background. We summarize the relevant facts from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Foster v. Group Health Inc., 444 Mass. 668, 672, 830 N.E.2d 1061 (2005). The facts as written are undisputed. In 2004, after obtaining a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report from the Criminal History Systems Board, indicating no prior criminal convictions, the hospital hired Consoli as an interpreter. Shortly after being

hired Consoli was oriented and informed of the hospital's policies. One such policy was that as an interpreter, Consoli was never to touch or be alone with any patients. This policy was self-regulated by Consoli, that is, the only person to insure that Consoli was never alone with a patient was himself.

On March 31, 2008, Jane, a Spanish-speaking immigrant from Guatemala who understands minimal English and has no formal education, was admitted to the hospital in connection with the impending labor and delivery of her first child. She was directed to a room and changed into a hospital gown. At or shortly after 3:05 p.m. Consoli entered Jane's hospital room and translated between Jane and Jane's doctor and nurse. After speaking with Jane, Consoli and the medical team went out of the room, leaving her door open. Consoli told the nurse that he was going to another assignment in triage, but when she departed, he remained outside Jane's room.

Soon after, Consoli reentered Jane's room, alone, and asked Jane where she felt pain. He told her that he was examining her for medical purposes, lifted her gown, and touched her abdomen and vagina, then left the room. The nurse returned and found Consoli outside Jane's room. She informed him that she would page interpreter services when the anesthesiologist

36 N.E.3d 1260

arrived. Consoli left the area at about 3:15–3:20 p.m .

At about 3:20 p.m. that day, the hospital's director of patient advocacy was notified by another patient's primary care doctor that his patient had been sexually assaulted in the hospital that morning at around 9:15 a.m. by an interpreter in another part of the hospital. The hospital's department of public safety was notified immediately and an investigation was begun. Later that day, it was discovered that Consoli had been the patient's interpreter. The hospital placed Consoli on leave pending the outcome of the investigation and deactivated his electronic access to the hospital. He was subsequently terminated.2

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Borella v. Renfro
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 2, 2019
    ...questions of fact left for the jury. See Manning v. Nobile, 411 Mass. 382, 388, 582 N.E.2d 942 (1991) ; Doe v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 88 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 291, 36 N.E.3d 1258 (2015). However, where no rational view of the evidence would permit a finding of negligence or recklessness, sum......
  • Adams v. Cong. Auto Ins. Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 21, 2016
    ...1 v. Children's Hosp. Med. Center, 469 Mass. 710, 714 & n. 7, 16 N.E.3d 1044 (2014) ; Doe v. Boston Med. Center Corp., 88 Mass.App.Ct. 289, 291, 36 N.E.3d 1258 (2015). In deciding whether a special relationship exists between a particular plaintiff and defendant, our foremost consideration ......
  • Ledet v. Mills Van Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • June 15, 2020
    ...v. Beverly Enters.-Mass., Inc., 457 Mass. 234, 237, 929 N.E.2d 303 (2010). Our review is de novo. See Doe v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 88 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 290, 36 N.E.3d 1258 (2015). b. Negligence. In order to succeed on a negligence claim, "a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed t......
  • In re Estate of Galatis
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • September 9, 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT