Gonzalez-Lopez v. Yauco Health Care Corp.

1

GISELA GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YAUCO HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 18-1961 (ADC)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

March 18, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court are co-defendants Sr. Germán Burgos-Ferrer's (“Dr. Burgos”) motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 99, Yauco Health Care Corporation d/b/a Pavía Hospital Yauco (“Pavía Yauco”), Jamie Vega, and Verónica Martínez-Garza's motion for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 101, 106, and Sindicato de Aseguradoras para la Suscripción Conjunta de Seguros de Responsabilidad Profesional Médico-Hospitalaria (“SIMED”) motions for joinder, ECF Nos. 104, 105.

For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the motions for summary judgment at ECF Nos. 101 106 and DISMISSES with prejudice all of plaintiffs' claims under EMTALA, infra.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs Gisela González-López, Israel Burgos, and the Conjugal Partnership between them (“as heir[s] of Israel José Burgos-González”) filed a complaint^[1] against several co-defendants under this Court's federal question jurisdiction for the death of Israel José Burgos-González. ECF No 1.^[2] Plaintiffs asserted claims of medical malpractice under the Puerto Rico tort statute and claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. §1395 dd, et seq. against all defendants. Id.

Pursuant to plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal, ECF Nos. 88, 89, the Court entered partial judgment dismissing all claims against several co-defendants. See ECF Nos. 93, 95. The remaining defendants filed answers to the complaint. See ECF Nos. 37, 39, 40, 42, 43.

Following a settlement conference, on April 29, 2021, co-defendant Dr. Burgos filed a motion for summary judgment requesting dismissal of all claims including the state court medical malpractice claims along with a “Statement of Uncontested Material Facts” (“SUMF”) in support. ECF Nos. 99, 99-1. Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition and a “Statement of Contested Material Facts.” ECF Nos. 107, 107-1. Dr. Burgos filed a reply arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs' “Statement of Contested Material Facts” “fails to comply with the clear mandates of Local Rule 5(c).” ECF No. 112 at 1. Plaintiffs sur-replied, ECF No. 116.

On April 30, 2021, co-defendants Pavía Yauco, Jamie Vega, and Verónica Martínez-Galarza filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a SUMF, and a memorandum of law in support thereof. ECF Nos. 101, 101-1, 101-7. Plaintiffs filed an opposition and a “Statement of Contested Material Facts.” ECF Nos. 110, 110-1. However, plaintiffs failed to address, admit, deny, or qualify the SUMF submitted with the motion for summary judgment as required by Local Rule 56. Co-defendants Pavía Yauco, Jamie Vega, and Verónica Martínez-Galarza filed a reply pointing out that plaintiffs' “Statement of Contested Material Facts” “does not comply with the dispositions of Local Civil Rule 56(c)[, ]” thus, they argue, “all the uncontested material facts included in the [SUMF]… should be deemed as admitted.” ECF No. 118 at 2.

The Court granted co-defendants Pavía Yauco, Jamie Vega, and Verónica Martínez-Galarza's motion for leave to file an additional dispositive motion. ECF No. 103. Accordingly, on May 5, 2021, co-defendants Jamie Vega and Verónica Martínez-Galarza filed a motion for summary judgment specifically arguing that EMTALA claims are not available against individuals or medical staff. ECF No. 106. Co-defendants submitted a SUMF in support. ECF No. 106-1. Plaintiffs filed an opposition. ECF No. 113. Unlike the case with the other two oppositions to summary judgment, this time plaintiffs filed a “Response to [SUMF]” addressing the SUMF submitted by co-defendants Jamie Vega and Verónica Martínez-Galarza with their second motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 113-1. Nonetheless, plaintiffs also filed yet another “Statement of Contested Material Facts.” ECF No. 113-2. Jamie Vega and Verónica Martínez-Galarza replied and plaintiffs sur-replied. ECF Nos. 120, 124.

SIMED filed motions for joinder. ECF No. 104, 105. The Court held a status conference on October 13, 2021. The parties took turns arguing their position in connection with the case and the pending motions for summary judgment. Co-defendants (including counsel for Dr. Guzmán) challenged the “application of EMTALA to defendants in their individual capacity.” See ECF No. 133 at 1. “In response to specific questioning, counsel for plaintiffs admitted that medical personnel nor the doctors may be personally liable under EMTALA.” Id. at 2. Accordingly, the Court ordered the dismissal of “any such claims.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs did not move to alter amend that Order, nor did they file a notice of appeal.

II. Plaintiffs' failure to comply with this District Court's Local Rules

As an initial matter, the Court will address plaintiffs' noncompliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and Local Rule 56. Under Local Rule 56(c):

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall submit with its opposition a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts. The opposing statement shall 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. Unless a fact is admitted, the opposing statement shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation as required by this rule. The opposing statement may contain in a separate section additional facts, set forth in separate numbered paragraphs and supported by a record citation as required by subsection (e) of this rule. (Emphasis added).

If a party improperly controverts the facts, the court may treat those facts as uncontroverted. Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Tr., 291 F.Supp.3d 215, 219 (D.P.R. 2018). While the district court may “forgive” a violation of Local Rule 56, litigants who ignore the rule do so “at their peril.” Mariani-Colón v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. ex rel. Chertoff, 511 F.3d 216, 219 (1st Cir. 2007), Puerto Rico American Ins. Co. v. Rivera-Vázquez, 603 F.3d 125, 131 (1st Cir. 2010).

Plaintiffs blatantly disregarded Local Rule 56(c). Indeed, plaintiffs did not address in any shape or form the SUMF submitted by defendants. To wit, in their “Statement of Contested Material Facts” at ECF No. 107, plaintiffs did not address, admit, deny, or qualify any of Dr. Burgos' SUMF at ECF No. 99-1. Likewise, in their “Statement of Contested Material Facts” at ECF No. 110-1, plaintiffs failed to admit, deny, or qualify a single statement included in co-defendants Pavía Yauco, Jamie Vega, and Verónica Martínez-Galarza's SUMF at ECF No. 101-1.

Most of plaintiffs' “Statement of Contested Material Facts” are paragraphs with statements that have no bearing or connection to the underlying proposed fact. Indeed, most of plaintiffs' “Statement of Contested Material Facts” simply repeat plaintiffs' general allegations, and legal conclusions. Thus, plaintiff “Statement of Contested Material Facts” filed in opposition to defendant's SUMF clearly fails to comply with Local Rule 56(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because of plaintiffs' deviation “with the standards of Local Rule 56, [the Court] is free, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to accept the moving party's facts as stated.” Adv. Flexible Circuits, Inc. v. GE Sensing & Inspection Techs. GmbH, 781 F.3d 510, 521 (1st Cir. 2015)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Undisputed Facts^[3]

Pavía Yauco is subject to the provisions of EMTALA, 42 U.S.C. §1395dd et seq. 2. ECF No. 101-1 at 1.

Israel José Burgos-González was 20 years-old and suffered from Cerebral Palsy disorder. Around 6:45 p.m. on December 13, 2017, Israel José Burgos-González and his mother, plaintiff Gisela González-López, were taken in an ambulance to the Pavía Yauco's emergency room (“ER”) after being involved in a car accident. Plaintiff Gisela González-López was driving the car when she had an epileptic seizure and crashed. Id., ECF No. 1 ¶39.

Upon arrival, Israel José Burgos-González was promptly triaged by co-defendant Verónica Martínez-Garza, BSN, “who noted as Chief Complaint that family member refers (sic) that they were involved in an accident and came due to multiple trauma.” ECF No. 101-1 at 2; ECF No. 101-2 at 30-33; ECF No. 101-3 at 46. She also noted that the patient had no pain at the time and described him as alert, and his mental state as confused/disoriented. Id. His vital signs were listed as: BP 138/89, T 36.7°C, P 100 bpm, R 16 rpm, and O2Sat 95%. Id. The patient was categorized as: Semi-Urgent. Id. The patient's vital signs at triage were normal. ECF No. 101-3 at 50.

After triage, the Israel José Burgos-González was brought into the ER's observation area and was placed in the same cubicle as his mother. ECF No. 101-4 at 36-37. According to the medical records, Israel José Burgos-González was admitted to the ER at 7:30 p.m. ECF No. 101-2 at 5. At 7:30 p.m., co-defendant Jamie Vega, BSN, logged that the patient was received from prior shift (which ended at 7:00 pm), that he was alert and oriented at the moment, that initial evaluation by a physician was pending, and that he was accompanied by a family member. ECF No. 101-2 at 33.

After evaluating plaintiff Gisela González-López, Dr Burgos evaluated Israel José Burgos-González, investigated his medical history and performed a physical examination, which was documented in the medical record at around 8:44 p.m. ECF No. 101-2 at 6-7. Dr. Burgos noted the chief complaint as: “Israel Burgos is a 20-year(s) years (sic) old male, the reason of visit is CHEST CONTUSION AND ABDJOMINAL (sic) CONTUSION DONE...