Martinez v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 August 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 16-2430(RAM)
• Parties: NOEL MARTINEZ, ET AL Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

NOEL MARTINEZ, ET AL Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant

CIVIL NO. 16-2430(RAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

August 26, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, District Judge

Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 62) accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 63) and supporting Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 64). Plaintiffs filed a Statement in Opposition to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 71) and a Memorandum in Opposition. (Docket No. 72). After reviewing the parties' filings and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 62.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an action for emotional and physical damages against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq. (Docket No. 1 at 4). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Noel Martínez-Marrero's ("Martínez-Marrero"), their father, died due to negligent treatment provided by the Veterans Affairs Hospital ("VA Hospital"). Id. at 2). On December 12, 2016, the Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint denying all acts of negligence. (Docket No. 11 at 5).

Plaintiffs retained Dr. José R. Ortiz-Feliciano ("Dr. Ortiz-Feliciano") as their expert witness to testify about Mr. Martínez-Marrero's cause of death, the applicable medical standards and the deviations of care by the VA Hospital. (Docket No. 27 at 33). On February 11, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to exclude Dr. Ortiz-Feliciano's expert testimony for failing to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. (Docket No. 33). Plaintiffs filed an Opposition in response. (Docket No. 38). The Court ultimately granted Defendant's Motion in Limine, thereby striking Dr. Ortiz-Feliciano's proffered testimony. (Docket No. 46). Furthermore, the Court denied Plaintiffs' subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket No. 48).

II. LEGAL REVIEW

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. See 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 to rebut 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) (noting that responses only averring a "lack of knowledge or information sufficient to either admit or deny [a fact]" did not create an issue of fact).

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) (quoting Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2010) and Malave-Torres v. Cusido, 919 F.Supp. 2d 198, 207 (D.P.R. 2013)).

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 at their peril. See Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219 (citations omitted).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

To make findings of fact, the Court analyzed Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 63), Plaintiffs' Statement in Opposition to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 71), as well as the totality of the record, including the Complaint (Docket No. 1). After only crediting material facts that are properly supported by a record citation to admissible evidence and are uncontroverted, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. In 2014, Mr. Noel Martínez-Marrero ("Martínez-Marrero" or the "Patient") was a sixty-six (66) year-old veteran with a history of chronic liver disease and high blood pressure. (Docket Nos. 63 ¶ 12; 1 ¶ 9).

2. On October 17, 2014, Mr. Martínez-Marrero went to the VA Hospital because of abdominal pain, general malaise, headache and vomiting. (Docket No. 1 ¶¶ 9-10).

3. On October 18, 2014, Mr. Martínez-Marrero was admitted to the VA Hospital due to his advanced chronic liver disease, obstructive jaundice, and suspected upper GI bleeding and left femoral fracture. (Docket No. 71-1 at 7-9).

4. According to his medical records, Mr. Martinez-Marrero's medical history included the following conditions: Hypertension; Thrombocytopenia (active/chronic); Chronic Hepatitis C; Chronic Hepatitis B; Diabetes Mellitus; Hypertrophy (benign) of Prostate with urinary retention; Subdural Hematoma following injury; Depressive Disorder; Anemia (active/chronic); Schizophrenia (Undifferentiated Type); Carcinoid Syndrome; Cocaine abuse (in remission); Heroin Dependence (in remission); Cholelithiasis; Diverticulosis Colonic; Impotence (organic origin); Low back pain; a closed supracondylar fracture of femur; Impaired wheelchair motility. (Docket No. 71-4 at 1-7).

5. Mr. Martinez-Marrero suffered from the listed chronic conditions long before October 2014 when he visited the VA Emergency Room. (Docket No. 63 ¶ 22).

6. During his hospitalization, on October 19, 2014, Mr. Martínez-Marrero fell. (Docket No. 71 ¶ 13).

7. While at the VA Hospital, Mr. Martínez-Marrero's platelets were lowering and reached the following levels:

October 18, 2014: 75 L

October 20, 2014: 82 L

October 21, 2014: 70 L

October 22, 2014: 68 L

October 23, 2014: 65 L

October 25, 2014: 63 L

October 26, 2014: 54 L

(Docket Nos. 71 ¶ 6; 71-4 at 946-948).

8. Mr. Martínez-Marrero's platelets were not corrected. (Docket No. 71-3 at 60-61).

9. While hospitalized, Mr. Martínez-Marrero was on Vancomycin for six (6) days, starting October 22, 2014 until October 28, 2014. (Docket No. 71 ¶ 19).

10. Mr. Martinez-Marrero remained at the VA Hospital until October 29, 2014, when he was found unresponsive by the nursing staff and subsequently pronounced dead. (Docket No. 63 ¶ 16; 71-4 at 8).

11. The "Summary of Death Note" dated October 29, 2014 in the medical records states that Mr. Martínez-Marrero's had previously decided that he wanted "no resuscitation or intubation, he was aware of his critical condition." (Docket No. 71-1 at 6).

12. On August 3, 2016, Mr. Martínez-Marrero's daughters and son (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed an action for emotional and physical damages against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346 (b), 2671, et. seq. (Docket No. 63 ¶¶ 1, 11).

13. Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Martínez-Marrero's death was wrongful and caused by the negligence and medical malpractice of the VA Hospital that treated him. Id. ¶ 2.

14. On December 12, 2016, the United States of America denied all acts of negligence in their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint denying all acts of negligence. Id. ¶ 3.

15. In her deposition, Defendant's expert witness Dr. Anibelle Altieri-Ramirez ("Dr. Altieri"), testified that individuals with thrombocytopenia, such as the Patient, have an increased risk of bleeding depending on the values of their platelets. (Docket Nos. 71 ¶¶ 14-15; 71-3 at 73).

16. Pathologist Jose Torres-Rivera testified at his deposition that he

...