Sanchez v. Acaa
| Decision Date | 21 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 96-2052 (JAG). |
| Citation | 247 F.Supp.2d 61 |
| Parties | Edgardo Millet SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. ACAA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Maricarmen Almodovar-Diaz, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Jesus R. Rabell-Mendez, Rossello-Rentas & Rabell-Mendez, Edwin A. Hernandez-Rodriguez, Michael Trias-Fraticelli, Rene R. Silva-Benoy, Rafael E. Silva-Almeyda, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Edgardo Millet Sanchez ("Millet") brought suit against defendants Dr. Luis Gonzalez Alonso ("Gonzalez Alonso"), Dr. Angel Santiago Ponce ("Santiago Ponce") and the Automobile Accidents Compensation Administration ("ACAA," for its Spanish acronym), alleging that the defendants 1 discriminated against him because of his disability, in violation of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and various state laws. All three defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment.2
On December 13, 2001, Magistrate-Judge Gustavo Gelpi issued a report and recommendation denying ACAA's summary judgment motion. (Docket No. 135.) The Court adopted the report and recommendation on January 11, 2002. (Docket No. 137.) On January 8 and January 14, 2002, Magistrate-Judge Gelpi issued two additional reports and recommendations granting Gonzalez Alonso's and Santiago Ponce's summary judgment motions. (Docket Nos. 136, 138.) On January 18, 2002 and January 24, 2002, Millet filed objections to Magistrate-Judge Gelpi's reports and recommendations as to Gonzalez Alonso and Santiago Ponce. (Docket Nos. 139,140.)
On July 24, 2002, ACAA filed another summary judgment motion (Docket No. 147), arguing that the Magistrate-Judge's finding that Millet was not a "qualified individual with a disability" pursuant to the ADA should apply to it as well. On September 4, 2002, the Court issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of all dispositive motions. (Docket No. 170.) Upon review of the record, the Court adopts the Magistrate-Judge's reports and recommendations (albeit on an alternative ground), and grants Gonzalez Alonso's and Santiago Ponce's summary judgment motions. Additionally, the Court denies ACAA's latest summary judgment motion. This case shall proceed against ACAA.
In 1986, Millet suffered an accident while working as a cook at Aurorita's, a Mexican restaurant. He sustained seconddegree burns and had to be hospitalized as a result. During his stay at the Burn Unit of the Industrial Hospital, he developed an anxiety disorder. Millet thereafter received psychiatric treatment at the Bayamon Regional Hospital's Medical Health Clinic. At some point, he stopped his treatment at the Medical Health Clinic. In 1993, he began receiving psychiatric treatment from Dr. Jose Vazquez Sotomayor ("Vazquez Sotomayor"), a private psychiatrist.
Vazquez Sotomayor diagnosed Millet as having chronic paranoid schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder. Paranoid schizophrenia is a psychotic illness that causes a person to believe that the world wants to hurt him. The patient generally suffers from visual and auditory hallucinations, has attention problems, believes he is being persecuted, and is at times disoriented and outside reality. Millet also claims to suffer from agoraphobia, a condition that causes a person to feel apprehensive about crowds or places.4 Vazquez Sotomayor testified, inter alia, that Millet experiences high anxiety when surrounded by people or when he is in crowded places, and cannot wait in those situations.
Vazquez Sotomayor prescribed a series of medications to Millet. In July 1993, Vazquez Sotomayor recommended that Millet be hospitalized through the Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund, and later referred Millet to be hospitalized at the Mepsi Center, a mental health hospital in Puerto Rico. Millet's medical records show that he has exhibited symptoms related to schizophrenia and affective disorders, and has experienced severe psychosis, depression, insomnia, and anxiety as a result of them.
On August 28, 1995, Millet was involved in a car accident in which he injured his legs, requiring medical attention and, eventually, orthopedic surgery. Following the accident, he was taken to the Bayamon Regional Hospital, where the medical staff took X-rays and placed a cast on his right leg. They also gave him the requisite paperwork to take to ACAA to receive a medical referral.
ACAA first referred Millet to Dr. Rufino Montahez ("Montanez"). Montanez examined Millet and concluded that he needed emergency surgery. He also noted that Millet had an emotional condition that needed to be taken into account.5 Montanez operated patients at the Bayamon Regional Hospital, however, and Millet found the location to be inconvenient for him and his family. Accordingly, Millet decided to return to ACAA for a new referral.
On September 11, 1995, ACAA referred Millet to Gonzalez Alonso, an orthopaedist. When Millet arrived at Gonzalez Alonso's office, the receptionist asked Millet to put his name on a patient waiting list. She also instructed Millet to wait in the office's reception area. Millet informed the receptionist that he suffered from agoraphobia (and described its symptoms), and asked to be seen before other patients. After the receptionist informed Millet that Gonzalez Alonso saw patients on a first-come, firstserved basis, Millet went into a bathroom, locked himself inside, and had a crisis. Gonzalez Alonso's staff informed him of the situation, and he asked his secretary to allow Millet into his office. Millet explained to Gonzalez Alonso that he suffered from a disability due to a nervous condition and that, as a result, he could not be surrounded by people. Gonzalez Alonso testified that after speaking with Millet, he had reason to believe that Millet had a proper basis for requesting a special accommodation.
Gonzalez Alonso reviewed Millet's medical records and noticed that Montanéz had diagnosed Millet as suffering from a right ankle displaced fracture and as needing orthopedic surgery. Gonzalez Alonso did not physically examine Millet. He concluded that he could not treat Millet because he did not believe that, given Millet's mental condition, he would be able to control Millet after a surgical procedure. Gonzalez Alonso opined that Millet would be better served by attending a multidisciplinary facility such as the Puerto Rico Medical Center, which employs various full-time specialists who could tend to Millet's particular medical and psychiatric needs. Since Gonzalez Alonso decided that he could not treat Millet, he did not bill ACAA for his services.
ACAA next referred Millet to Santiago Ponce, also an orthopaedist. Millet called Santiago Ponce's office to request an appointment. He also requested a reasonable accommodation for his condition of agoraphobia. Santiago Ponce's secretary explained that the doctor saw patients based on their order of arrival. Millet then asked to speak with Santiago Ponce. The parties disagree on the substance of the conversation, but there is no dispute that after speaking briefly, Millet hung up the telephone and never contacted Santiago Ponce's office again.6
On October 2, 1995, ACAA referred Millet to Dr. Cesar Cintron Valle ("Cintron Valle"). ACAA personnel explained Millet's medical and psychiatric condition to Cintron Valle, and asked whether he could see and evaluate Millet promptly. Cintron Valle agreed to do so. He operated Millet's fractured foot at the Hospital San Francisco.
On August 28, 1996, Millet filed suit.
A. Standard for Reviewing a Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation
trate-Judge for a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b); Local Rule 503. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Local Rule 510.2, the adversely affected party may contest the Magistrate-Judge's report and recommendation by filing written objections "[w]ithin ten days of being served" with a copy of the order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Since Millet's has filed timely objections to the Magistrate-Judge's reports and recommendations, the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which Millet made specific objection. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Lopez v. Chater, 8 F.Supp.2d 152, 154 (D.P.R.1998).
The standard for summary judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.7 The Court may grant summary judgment only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 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); See Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir.2000). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
A properly supported motion can be survived only if the non-moving party shows that a trial worthy issue exists. The party opposing the motion cannot rely on an absence of competent evidence, but must affirmatively point to specific facts that demonstrate the existence of an authentic dispute. Not every controversy is sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The fact has to be "material" and the dispute must be "genuine." "Material" means that a contested fact has the potential to change the outcome of a suit. The issue is "genuine" when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutting v. Down E. Orthopedic Assocs., P.A.
...require defendant-provider's services again due to history of using provider and ongoing chronic health conditions); Sanchez v. ACAA , 247 F.Supp.2d 61, 68 (D.P.R. 2003) (denying standing where plaintiff-patient has not alleged that he plans to use defendants' medical services in the future......
-
Martinez v. Nat'l Univ. Coll.
...Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). (It is a doctrine that applies "only in exceptional situations."). 5. See Sanchez v. ACAA, 247 F. Supp. 2d 61, 67 (D.P.R. 2003) ("Pursuant to Title III, the Court may award monetary damages only when the Attorney General becomes involved in the mat......
-
Rodríguez-NegróN v. San Juan Children's Choir, CIVIL NO. 15-1608 (GAG)
...fundamentally altering the nature of the public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), (b)(2)(A)(ii); see also Sanchez v. ACAA, 247 F. Supp. 2d 61, 67 (D.P.R. 2003). On February 27, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file a simultaneous brief addressing Plaintiffs' proposed relief und......
-
Yordán v. Am. Postal Workers Union
... ... Serrano v. Figueroa-Sancha, 878 F. Supp. 2d 301, 314-315 (D.P.R. 2012); Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Acevedo-Villa, 269 F.R.D. 116, 119 (D.P.R. 2010). Moreover, "[l]ast minute attempts at service, absent some explanatory justification, do not ... ...