Love v. Lee Mem'l Health Sys.

• Decision Date: 03 January 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-379-JES-MRM
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
• Parties: JULIE LOVE, Plaintiff, v. LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a CAPE CORAL HOSPITAL and JEOVANNI HECHAVARRIA, R.N., Defendants.

JULIE LOVE, Plaintiff,
v.
LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a CAPE CORAL HOSPITAL and JEOVANNI HECHAVARRIA, R.N., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-379-JES-MRM

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

January 3, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHH E. STEELE, SENOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant Lee Memorial Health System's Motion For Summary Judgment And Memorandum of Law (Doc. #40) filed on August 6, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #46) on August 27, 2021, to which defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #51) on September 3, 2021. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

I.

Plaintiff Julie Love (Plaintiff or Love) filed a six-count Amended Complaint against defendants Lee Memorial Health System d/b/a Cape Coral Hospital (Lee Memorial or Defendant) and Jeovanni Hechavarria, R.N. (Hechavarria). (Doc. #23.) Lee Memorial now seeks summary judgment on all the claims in which it is a defendant. (Doc. #40.)

1

A. Factual Background^[1]

Defendant Lee Memorial is a Florida public health care system which operates as Cape Coral Hospital (the Hospital). (Doc. #23, ¶¶ 4, 8-9.) In September 2014, Lee Memorial hired Hechavarria, a registered nurse, as a nurse intern for the Hospital. (Doc. #41-1, ¶¶ 21-22; Doc. #47-10, p. 10.) Prior to being hired by Lee Memorial, Hechavarria completed an employment application, underwent three interviews, and was subject to national criminal background screening conducted by a third-party company named “Sterling.” (Doc. #41-1, ¶¶ 7-8, 15.) Hechavarria's background criminal screening provided an “all clear” result. (Id., ¶ 17.)

In fact, before Hechavarria's employment with Lee Memorial, he had multiple injunctions issued against him for domestic violence, and has been disciplined by former employers for workplace misconduct. In 1999, a temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against Hechavarria after he slapped and punched a woman for refusing to have sexual intercourse with him. (Doc. #47-2.) In 2007, Hechavarria received

2

a “general discharge” from the United States Navy for misconduct described as a “serious offense.” (Doc. #47-6; Doc. #47-7.) In 2008, while working for Harbor Nissan, Hechavarria received an Employee Warning Notice for a violation of company procedures and was told “to refrain from behavior or activities which are or could be seen or deemed as inappropriate while on company time or premises.” (Doc. #47-8.) After another warning, Harbor Nissan terminated Hechavarria for an unknown reason in 2010. (Doc. #47-9.) In 2010, a second temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence was entered against Hechavarria for stalking his wife after she left him and obtained her own apartment. (Doc. #47-4.)

On the night of March 17, 2015, Hechavarria was tending to patient Brianna Hammer, who had been admitted to the Hospital for suspected food poisoning and flu illness. (Doc. #47-16, pp. 119-20.) Ms. Hammer alleged that Hechavarria engaged in inappropriate behavior by groping her breasts on several occasions, pulling her underwear down to look at her vagina and anus, and digitally penetrating her vagina. (Id., pp. 151-54, 162, 171-72.)

Ms. Hammer reported Hechavarria's sexual assault to Lee Memorial personnel, as well as the Cape Coral police. (Id., pp. 180-82.) Ms. Hammer informed hospital staff (a supervisor and security guard) and a police officer that Hechavarria's gloves and gown, which he wore during the assault, were in the hospital room

3

trash can. (Id., pp. 182, 190-91.) Nevertheless, no evidence was collected. (Id., p. 191; Doc. #47-18, p. 2.) The Cape Coral police officer conducted a brief interview of Ms. Hammer, but according to Lee Memorial's security guard, the police did not think Ms. Hammer's story was valid. (Doc. #47-17, pp. 42-45.) Lee Memorial's risk manager, Pamela Palmerton, also investigated Ms. Hammer's complaint. (Doc. #47-18; Doc. #47-19, pp. 19-20.) Ms. Palmerton determined that Ms. Hammer's sexual assault allegations were not credible because Ms. Palmerton believed Ms. Hammer was inconsistent about the number of fingers Hechavarria inserted into her vagina, the time each assault occurred, and whether Ms. Hammer's underwear were pulled down or taken completely off. (Doc. #47-19, pp. 90-97.) Although Ms. Palmerton never spoke with the police officer who interviewed Ms. Hammer, Ms. Palmerton relied upon the police officer's opinion that Ms. Hammer was making up the allegations in reaching her determination. (Id., p. 105.)

On March 18, 2015, within twenty-four hours of the reported sexual assault, Ms. Palmerton concluded Ms. Hammer's investigation and reported to the Department of Health that Lee Memorial was unable to validate Ms. Hammer's claims. (Doc. #47-20.) Lee Memorial closed its investigation before the police and State Attorney concluded their investigation, and before a local police detective was able to interview Ms. Hammer. (Doc. #47-19, pp. 102-09.) On March 29, 2015, the detective interviewed Ms. Hammer

4

and “believed something occurred.” (Doc. #47-25, p. 23.) On August 15, 2018, the State Attorney brought criminal charges against Hechavarria as a result of Ms. Hammer's allegations. (Doc. #47-26.)

On the day of the assault, Hechavarria was placed on paid leave during the investigation, in part for “his safety” because Ms. Hammer's boyfriend made threatening Facebook posts. (Doc. #47-18, p. 3.) Hechavarria was to remain on paid leave until the police investigation was completed, but he was permitted to return to work just three days after the assault and before the police concluded their investigation. (Id., p. 3; Doc. #47-11, p. 114; Doc. #47-19, pp. 102-03.) Lee Memorial never disciplined Hechavarria, nor did it train him on appropriate patient contact, provide increased supervision, or restrict his access to female patients. (Doc. #47-6, pp. 115-18; Doc. #47-11, pp. 94-95; Doc. #47-12, pp. 89-91.) Lee Memorial also never conducted additional investigation into Hechavarria's background following the allegations of sexual assault. (Doc. #47-28; Doc. #47-29; Doc. #47-30, pp. 75, 79.)

On April 11, 2016, Plaintiff was admitted to Cape Coral Hospital to receive treatment for pancreatitis. (Doc. #47-33, pp. 40, 47.) Plaintiff was treated at the hospital for her condition for several days until she was discharged on April 18, 2016. (Id., p. 45.) On or about April 17, 2016, Hechavarria was working the

5

night shift, during which he allegedly assaulted and raped Plaintiff while she was on narcotic pain medication. (Id., pp. 51, 118-22, 125.) In April 2018, Plaintiff reported Hechavarria's misconduct to the police. (Id., pp. 124-25.)

On March 3, 2020, Hechavarria was convicted of “sexual battery when victim helpless, ” after the State of Florida brought charges against him for sexually battering a Lee Memorial patient, Ms. Donia Goines. (Doc. #47-36, pp. 233, 252; Doc. #47-37.)

B. Procedural Background

In May 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a five-count Complaint^[2]. (Doc. #1-1.) On August 10, 2020, defendant Hechavarria filed his answer and affirmative defenses, along with a Motion to Dismiss Count V of the Complaint. (Doc. #17; Doc. #18.) Defendant Hechavarria's motion was granted, and thereafter Plaintiff filed a six-count Amended Complaint against Lee Memorial and Hechavarria. (Doc. #23.) Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Lee Memorial: (1) violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) negligent retention; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligence; and (5) negligent hiring. (Id., pp. 4-12.) Plaintiff asserts a sixth claim solely against

6

Hechavarria for sexual assault and sexual battery. (Id., p. 13.) On August 6, 2021, defendant Lee Memorial filed the Motion for Summary Judgment now before the Court, arguing there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. #40.)

II.

Motions for summary judgment should only be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “An issue of fact is ‘genuine' if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). A fact is “material” if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A court must decide ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).

7

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 772 (11th Cir. 2010). However, "[i]f reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then the court should deny summary judgment." St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815, 819 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 1983)). "If a reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the court should not grant summary judgment." Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007).

III.

...