Goines v. Lee Mem'l Health Sys.

DONIA GOINES, Plaintiff, v. LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, d.b.a. Cape Coral Hospitaland JEOVANNI HECHAVARRIA, Defendants.

Case No: 2:17-cv-656-FtM-29CM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

February 8, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Lee Memorial Health Systems' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #97) filed on November 5, 2018. Plaintiff Donia Goines filed a Response (Doc. #119) on December 10, 2018. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted by defendant Jeovanni Hechavarria at a hospital operated by Lee Memorial. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 25, 2018, asserting a section 1983 claim and several common law negligence claims against Lee Memorial, as well as a common law assault and battery claim against Hechavarria. (Doc. #31.) Lee Memorial now moves for summary judgment on the five counts in which it is a defendant. (Doc. #97.)

I.

A. Factual Background¹

Lee Memorial, a public health care system codified under Florida law, hired Hechavarria as a night nurse for the Cape Coral Hospital in the fall of 2014. (Doc. #31, p. 2; Doc. #120-22, pp. 761-62.) Prior to doing so, Lee Memorial conducted a background check on Hechavarria, searching for criminal or sex offender records. (Doc. #98-1, p. 8.) None of these searches revealed any arrests, charges, or convictions.² (Id. pp. 8-9.)

1) First Sexual Assault Allegation against Hechavarria

On the night of March 17, 2015, non-party Brianna Hammer was a patient at the Cape Coral Hospital after being admitted for suspected food poisoning and flu illness. (Doc. #122-1, p. 3.) Hechavarria was the assigned night nurse and, according to Hammer,engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior on multiple occasions throughout the night. (Id. p. 3.) For example, Hammer accused Hechavarria of touching her breasts in an inappropriate manner and touching her genitals under her gown. (Id.) Hechavarria also allegedly pulled down Hammer's underwear and looked at her vagina and anus. (Id. p. 4.) Hammer stated that at one point during the night, she awoke to find Hechavarria standing over her with his fingers inside her vagina. (Id.) As best Hammer can recall, Hechavarria was touching his penis at the same time. (Id.)

Hammer reported the alleged sexual assault to Lee Memorial personnel, as well as an officer from the Cape Coral Police Department who responded to the hospital. (Id. p. 5.) Hammer informed a hospital supervisor and hospital security officer that Hechavarria's gloves and gown, which he had been wearing during the alleged assault, were in the room's trash can. (Id. pp. 4-5.) Nonetheless, the evidence was not collected.³ (Id. p. 5.)

Hammer's complaint was investigated by Lee Memorial's risk manager. (Doc. #98-9, pp. 187-88.) The manager spoke with Hammer and believed she was being untruthful during the interview. (Id. p. 188.) The manager concluded Hammer had "made up the allegation." (Id. at 189.) In coming to this determination, the manager relied in part on findings by the responding police officer, who allegedly found Hammer's account inconsistent and determined she was making up the allegation. (Id.) The manager was able to complete the investigation "relatively quickly, due in part to the untruthfulness" of Hammer.⁴ (Id.)

On March 18, 2015, the day after Hammer accused Hechavarria of sexually assaulting her, the manager reported the allegation to the Florida Department of Health via letter. (Doc. #120-29, p.1889.) The letter notes that Lee Memorial had conducted an investigation and was unable to validate Hammer's claims. (Id.)

The record indicates Lee Memorial completed its investigation before law enforcement completed theirs. Hammer spoke with a Cape Coral Police Department detective approximately ten days after the alleged sexual assault. (Doc. #120-30, p. 1905.) That detective informed Lee Memorial a couple weeks after the accusation that the investigation was ongoing.⁵ (Id. pp. 1911-12, 1963-67.)

On the day of the alleged assault, Lee Memorial officials determined Hechavarria should be placed on paid leave. (Doc. #120-27, p. 1684.) The decision to place Hechavarria on leave was based in part on threatening posts Hammer's boyfriend allegedly made on Facebook. (Id.) While Hechavarria was to be on leave until the police investigation was completed, (id.), Hechavarria returned to work soon after, (Doc. #120-18, p. 677.) As Lee Memorial had determined the allegation was unsubstantiated, no discipline was imposed. (Doc. #98-8, p. 185.) Additionally, no changes were made to Hechavarria's access to female patients and he was notrequired to undergo any additional supervision or training.⁶ (Doc. #120-37, p. 2373.) Finally, Lee Memorial did not conduct any further investigation into Hechavarria's background as a result of the allegation. (Doc. #120-18, p. 680; Doc. #120-39, pp. 2424-25, 2452.)

2) Hechavarria's Arrest for Unrelated Battery

On July 8, 2016, Hechavarria was arrested by the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office for battery. (Doc. #120-46, pp. 2849-50.) The alleged victim of the battery was Hechavarria's brother. (Id.) Per Hechavarria, he informed his Lee Memorial supervisor of the arrest the next day he went to work. (Doc. #120-18, pp. 617-18.) Hechavarria was not suspended in response, (Id. p. 618), and it does not seem Lee Memorial conducted any investigation into the matter.⁷

3) Second Sexual Assault Allegation against Hechavarria

On July 15, 2016, plaintiff was admitted to the Cape Coral Hospital because her gallbladder was bursting. (Doc. #120-49, p. 3011.) The following evening, Hechavarria was plaintiff's assigned nurse and, according to plaintiff, inappropriately touched her on multiple occasions during the night. (Id. pp. 3019-20, 3024-36.) Per plaintiff, on Hechavarria's fourth visit to the room, plaintiff threatened to scream and Hechavarria allegedly told her he had her address and if she told anyone, he would come get her. (Id. p. 3036.) According to plaintiff, Hechavarria placed his gloved fingers inside her vagina and then proceeded to rape her despite her pleas to stop.⁸ (Id. pp. 3036-44.) Hechavarria allegedly told plaintiff that he would not get in trouble because nobody would believe her. (Id. p. 3040.)

The following day, plaintiff informed a different nurse about the alleged sexual assault. (Id. pp. 3056-57.) A hospital security officer spoke with plaintiff and the police were called to the hospital. (Id. pp. 3058-59.) Plaintiff also spoke to thesame Lee Memorial risk manager who investigated the Hammer allegation. (Id. p. 3060; Doc. #98-9, p. 190.) Hechavarria was initially placed on leave while Lee Memorial investigated the allegation but was subsequently terminated from employment approximately four months later.⁹ (Doc. #98-9, p. 190; Doc. #120-25, p. 1257.) Hechavarria has since been arrested and criminally charged with three counts of sexual battery, two of which relate to Hammer and plaintiff's allegations.¹⁰ (Doc. #120-33, pp. 2045-47.)

B. Procedural Background

On April 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a six count Amended Complaint against Hechavarria and Lee Memorial. (Doc. #31.) Counts One through Five of the Amended Complaint are against Lee Memorial and allege the following: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) negligent retention; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligence; and (5) negligent hiring. (Id. pp. 5-13.) Count Six is against Hechavarria for assault and battery. (Id. pp. 13-14.)

On November 5, 2018, Lee Memorial filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing it is entitled to summary judgment as to the first five counts in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. #97.)

II.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the Court is satisfied that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "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." Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A fact is "material" if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. See 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 matterof law.'" Hickson, 357 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).

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.

A. Count One - Section 1983

In the first count of the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges Lee Memorial violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving her of "the constitutional right to personal security and bodily integrity, including the right to be free from sexual abuse and sexual assault." (Doc. #31, p. 5.) In its motion, Lee Memorial argues it is entitled to summary judgment on this claim because (1) it is not considered a "person" under section 1983, and therefore cannotbe sued, and (2) even if it is considered a "person," plaintiff cannot establish Lee Memorial had a policy or custom that caused a...