González v. Manatí Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 16-3120 (RAM) |
| Parties | YOLANDA HERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ; GABRIEL RAMOS HERNÁNDEZ, Plaintiff, v. MANATÍ MEDICAL CENTER, et al Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court are co-defendants Dr. Irma Alvarado-Torres, Dr. Armando Cruzado-Ramos and Dorado Health, Inc.'s respective motions for summary judgment alleging, among other things, that all of Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. (Docket Nos. 117, 122, 133). For the reasons discussed below, having considered the parties' submissions in support and in opposition thereto, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part co-defendants' motions for summary judgment. Id.
On December 9, 2016, plaintiffs Yolanda Hernández-González ("Ms. Hernández") and her son Gabriel Ramos-Hernández ("Mr. Ramos"), collectively "Plaintiffs," filed the present Complaint against Dorado Health Inc. d/b/a/ Manatí Medical Center ("DHI" or the "Hospital"), Dr. Armando Cruzado-Ramos ("Dr. Cruzado"), Dr. Irma Alvarado-Torres ("Dr. Alvarado"), and other unnamed defendants. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants incurred in medical malpractice and provided medical services without informed consent in violation of Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, PR Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5141-5142. Id. at 1.
DHI and Dr. Alvarado moved to dismiss due to insufficiency and untimeliness of service of process. (Docket Nos. 21 and 28). The Court issued a Memorandum and Order: (1) denying the motions to dismiss; and (2) granting Plaintiffs a term to amend their Complaint. (Docket No. 31). Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on December 13, 2017. (Docket No. 33).
Plaintiffs allege that on September 5, 2015, Ms. Hernández underwent a laparoscopy performed by Dr. Alvarado and Dr. Cruzado at the Hospital. Id. ¶ 15. After the procedure, Dr. Alvarado informed Hernández "that she had to be kept in observation because her bowels had been lacerated" and the area needed to be cleaned and cauterized. Id. ¶ 16. After being discharged the next day, Hernández noticed that her stomach was swollen, and she began feeling a strong pain. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Ms. Hernández returned to the Hospital on September 8, 2014, by ambulance, and remained hospitalized until early December 2014. Id. ¶¶ 18-22. Later that same month, Hernández returned to the Hospital and was ultimately discharged on January 9, 2015. Id. ¶ 22.
Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Cruzado's informed consent form does not list intestinal laceration as a possible complication and that Dr. Alvarado did not obtain Ms. Hernández's informed consent at all. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiffs seek compensation for Ms. Hernández's physical damages and Mr. Ramos's mental anguish due to his mother's treatment. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Although Plaintiffs recognize that the acts or omissions that caused their damages occurred in 2014, they contend that their claims are not time-barred because: (1) Plaintiffs sent letters to the Defendants tolling the statute of limitations in 2015; and (2) that Plaintiffs' damages are continuous. Id. at 2.
On March 20, 2019, Dr. Alvarado and Dr. Cruzado filed individual motions for summary judgement contending that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred. (Docket Nos. 117 and 122). In response, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Co-defendants' Dr. Alvarado-Torres & Cruzado-Ramos' Motion for Summary Judgment, a Response to their Statements of Uncontested Material Facts, and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposition. (Docket Nos. 142, 143 and 144). Dr. Alvarado and Dr. Cruzado filed a Joint Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition and Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply. (Docket Nos. 155 and 166).
Similarly, on March 27, 2019, DHI filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment accompanied by a supporting Memorandum of Law and a Statement of Uncontested Material Facts. (Docket Nos. 133, 134and 135) DHI argued that Plaintiff's claims against it are time-barred. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to DHI's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts as well as a Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposition. (Docket Nos. 147 and 148). The Hospital filed a Reply to each motion (Docket Nos. 156-158) and Plaintiff filed Sur-Replies in response (Docket Nos. 170, 171 and 174).
A motion for summary judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that: (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and (2) they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute is 'genuine' if the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the non-moving party." Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co., 522 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2008). A fact is considered material if it "may potentially 'affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.'" Albite v. Polytechnic Univ. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 3d 191, 195 (D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 660-661 (1st Cir. 2000)).
The moving party has "the initial burden of demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with definite and competent evidence." Mercado-Reyes v. City of Angels, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 344, at 347 (D.P.R. 2018) (quotation omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, to present "competent evidence torebut the motion." Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Terra II MC & P, Inc., 2020 WL 118592, at 6* (quoting Méndez-Laboy v. Abbott Lab., 424 F.3d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 2005)). A nonmoving party must show "that a trialworthy issue persists." Paul v. Murphy, 2020 WL 401129, at *3 (1st Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).
While a court will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, it will disregard conclusory allegations, unsupported speculation and improbable inferences. See Johnson v. Duxbury, Massachusetts, 931 F.3d 102, 105 (1st Cir. 2019). Moreover, the existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 (2007) (quotation omitted). Hence, a court should review the record in its entirety and refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000).
In this District, summary judgment is also governed by Local Rule 56. See L. CV. R. 56(c). Per this Rule, an opposing party must "admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the motion for summary judgment by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts." Id. Furthermore, unless the fact is admitted, the opposing party must support each denial or qualification with a record citation. Id.
Responses which "do not oppose the truth of the statement offered and are either irrelevant to the matter at hand, provide additional evidence not related to the fact in question and/or failed to contradict it" are insufficient to properly controvert a material fact. See Aztar Corp. v. N.Y. Entertainment, LLC, 15 F.Supp.2d 252, 254 n. 1 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd. 210 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2000) ().
Additionally, Local Rule 56(c) allows an opposing party to submit additional facts "in a separate section." L. CV. R. 56(c). Given that the plain language of Local Rule 56(c) specifically requires that any additional facts be stated in a separate section, parties are prohibited from incorporating numerous additional facts within their opposition. See Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Trust, 291 F. Supp. 3d 215, 218-219 (D.P.R. 2018) ().
If a party opposing summary judgment fails to comply with Local Rule 56(c)'s strictures, "a district court is free, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to accept the moving party's facts as stated." Caban Hernandez v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). Thus, litigants ignore this rule attheir peril. See Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219 (citations omitted).
To make findings of fact, the Court analyzed Dr. Alvarado's Statement of Uncontested Facts (Docket No. 117-1); Dr. Cruzado's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment (Docket No. 122-2); DHI's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment (Docket No. 135); Plaintiffs' Response to Co-Defendants Dr. Alvarado Torres and Dr. Cruzado Ramos' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 143) and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to DHI's Statement of Uncontested Facts (Docket No. 148). After only crediting material facts that are properly supported by a record citation and uncontroverted, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial