Saldana v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHERYL ANN KRAUSE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, sitting by designation.

Plaintiff Carlos Saldana brings this action against Defendants Delta Airlines, Inc. (“Delta”) and DAL Global Services, LLC (“DGS”), seeking to recover for injuries suffered as a result of Defendants' purported negligence in failing to provide Saldana with a wheelchair. According to Saldana, when no wheelchair was provided after he disembarked the first leg of his flight, a Delta flight attendant told him that he could still make his connecting flight if he walked quickly to the connecting gate. He did so and claims to have suffered a heart attack as a result. Defendants now move for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's medical expert. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants' motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's expert's testimony will be denied.

2

BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Factual Background

Saldana, a citizen of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is approximately 70 years old and has a history of cardiac problems. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 2; see also FAC ¶¶ 2, 8). Delta is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (See FAC ¶ 3). Delta contracts with DGS, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Atlanta, to provide wheelchair services to Delta's passengers at the Atlanta airport. (Haley Dep. 8:25-9:22; see also FAC ¶ 4).

On March 7, 2019, Saldana and his wife traveled on Delta Airlines from their home in St. Croix to Washington, D.C., with a connecting flight in Atlanta. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 1). The purpose of the trip was for Saldana to meet with a cardiologist in Washington

3

about his difficulty controlling his blood pressure. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 3). In view of that problem and his other cardiac history, including two open-heart surgeries, Saldana requested wheelchair assistance for each leg of his trip. (See id. ¶ 2; Pl. Dep. 29:8-29:25, 30:24-31:11).

Saldana's connection in Atlanta to catch his outgoing flight to Washington was extremely tight. If both flights were on time, he would have had only thirty-six minutes to make the connection. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4). As it turned out, however, the flight from St. Croix to Atlanta was delayed, and Saldana arrived at the gate in Atlanta at 8:41 p.m., approximately thirty minutes later than originally scheduled. (Howard Dep. 20:17-22). By that time, the doors to Plaintiff's connecting flight to Washington had closed, so it was impossible for Plaintiff to make his connection regardless of the speed at which he disembarked and hastened to the connecting gate. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Howard Dep. 20:2021:6).

Unaware of that circumstance, Saldana and his wife were purportedly told by a Delta flight attendant after disembarking that a wheelchair was not available for Saldana. (Pl. Dep. 30:24-31:17; M. Saldana Dep. 11:5-22). Saldana contends that the flight attendant told him that he could still make his connection if he walked quickly to the gate, which the flight attendant described as around the corner. (Pl. Dep. 30:24-31:17). Defendants dispute that this exchange took place (Def. Br. 2), but the parties do not dispute that there was no wheelchair waiting for Saldana when his flight landed in

4

Atlanta (Def. 56.1 ¶ 11; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 11). The wheelchair did not arrive at the gate until 8:53 p.m. (Id.).^[2]

According to Saldana, acting on the recommendation of the flight attendant, he and his wife did not wait for the wheelchair to arrive and instead walked to the gate of their connecting flight (Pl. Dep. 30:24-31:17, 32:18-21, 35:1-11; M. Saldana Dep. 11:522, 13:9-11), where they were informed that they had missed their connection but had been rebooked on a later flight (M. Saldana Dep. 13:9-25). It was only at this point-at the gate of the original connecting flight-that Saldana allegedly received a wheelchair. (Pl. Dep. 35:19-23).^[3]

Saldana claims that he started feeling unwell when he walked from his arrival gate to the gate of his original connecting flight. (Pl. Dep. 35:1-3). By the time he boarded his rebooked flight to Washington later that evening, he was experiencing chest pain. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 10). Shortly after boarding, Saldana was removed from the plane and taken

5

to the hospital, where test results suggested that he may have suffered a mild heart attack. (Id.; Shadoff Dep. 51:23-52:22; see also MIL Br., Ex. C (“Shadoff Report”)).^[4]

In addition to negligently failing to have a wheelchair available when he landed in Atlanta, Saldana argues Delta was negligent because its employee improperly told him to hurry to catch his connecting flight. (Pl. Opp. 7). Delta flight attendants are equipped with handheld devices called “Sky Pros” that contain information about the passengers on their flights, including detailed information about connecting flights. (Howard Dep. 21:21-22:7; Def. 56.1 ¶ 14). As such, Saldana argues that the flight attendant who purportedly told him he could still make his connection should have known better, because her Sky Pro should have provided updated information about Saldana's connection. (Pl. Opp. 2-3; see also Howard Dep. 21:9-23:9).

In short, Saldana claims both that Defendants were negligent in failing to provide him a wheelchair in a timely manner upon his arrival in Atlanta, and that Delta was negligent for incorrectly telling him he could still make his connecting flight when it knew or should have known the connecting flight had already departed. (FAC ¶¶ 10-11, 14-17; Pl. Opp. 1-2).

B. Procedural Background

Saldana initiated this suit on June 11, 2019, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. #1). In his initial complaint, Saldana named

6

only Delta as a defendant. (Id.). In its answer, Delta argued, among other things, that if Saldana was injured as a result of the events described in the complaint, DGS-not Delta-was liable. (Dkt. #4, ¶ 14). With leave of the Court, Saldana then filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. #21), which both parties proceeded to answer (Dkt. #26, 28).

Following discovery, Defendants filed their joint motion for summary judgment, which was fully briefed as of December 4, 2020 (Dkt. #70-72, 81-83, 85-86). Defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's proffered medical expert, Dr. Neal Shadoff, was filed on November 20, 2020 (Dkt. #80) and was fully briefed as of December 18, 2020 (Dkt. # 84, 87). The case was reassigned to this Court on September 7, 2021 (Dkt. #89), and both motions are ripe for decision.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Saldana advances two theories in support of his negligence claim in the instant litigation. First, he claims that Delta and DGS were negligent for failing to provide him a wheelchair in a timely manner upon his arrival in Atlanta (the “Delay Claim”). (FAC ¶¶ 14-17). Second, he contends that Delta is liable for its employee's negligence in incorrectly telling him he could still make his connecting flight if he went quickly when the employee knew or should have known that the connecting flight had already departed and that Saldana required wheelchair assistance (the “Misinformation Claim”). (FAC ¶¶ 10-11; see also Pl. Opp. 1-2).^[5] In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants

7

dispute both of Saldana's theories of negligence, arguing that Saldana cannot establish a breach of the standard of care as to the Delay Claim (Def. Br. 1), and that Saldana has offered no non-hearsay evidence to support his Misinformation Claim (Def. Reply 2-3).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the Delay Claim but will deny the motion as to the Misinformation Claim.

1. Applicable Law^[6]

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus., Inc., 787 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015).^[7]

8

A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, ” and it is genuinely in dispute “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534 (3d Cir. 2017).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact that supports the elements of its claims. Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24). Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party “must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir. 1991); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court is required to view all facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Curto v. A Country Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 921 F.3d 405, 409 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). But there are limits: “Unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions are

9

insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 2010).

2. The Delay Claim

Defendants argue that under Georgia law, the arrival of a wheelchair at 8:53 p.m.-less than ten minutes after the estimated arrival...