Opinion
Civil No. 05-1314 (GAG).
January 31, 2007
OPINION ORDER
Plaintiffs, son and widow of decedent Edwin Medina ("Mr. Medina"), filed this diversity suit under Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5141-5142, seeking damages for alleged medical malpractice which purportedly caused Mr. Medina's death. Presently before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 45). After considering the relevant facts and applicable law, Defendants' motion is DENIED.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering a summary judgment motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benefit of any and all reasonable inferences.See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). While the court concludes that Plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Mr. Medina told the emergency room physicians that he was experiencing chest pain, summary judgment is not appropriate. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the court concludes that the expert report and deposition testimony of Nedra R. Dodds, M.D., and the absence of certain notations in Mr. Medina's medical records raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants properly screened or interviewed Mr. Medina before classifying him as a "routine patient" and moving him to a waiting chair. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue regarding whether Defendants' assessment of Mr. Medina's health constituted an impermissible error of judgment. See Morales v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 269, 272 (D.P.R. 1986) (declaring impermissible error in judgment tantamount to negligence). Consequently, the court concludes that summary judgment is not warranted.
Defendants Ashford Presbyterian Hospital ("APH") and Emergency Department Medical Services, Inc. ("EDMS") contend that they are not liable for the allegedly negligent acts of the physicians in the emergency room because the physicians provided medical services as independent contractors. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has held that, where a patient seeks medical help directly at a health care institution, the employment relationship between the doctor and the institution is irrelevant. Rather, the key interaction for the fact-finder to consider is the relationship between the institution and the patient. When a patient visits a hospital for medical care and the hospital provides the physician, the hospital and the private physician are jointly liable for malpractice. See Márquez Vega v. Martínez Rosado, 116 D.P.R. 397, 406-07, 16 P.R. Offic. Trans. 487 (1985); García Colón v. García Rinaldi, 340 F. Supp. 2d 113, 127 (D.P.R. 2004). In this case, the record indicates that Mr. Medina visited APH's emergency room, which EDMS operates, seeking emergency medical care. APH or EDMS determined which physicians would treat him. Mr. Medina did not participate the decision and did not directly entrust any physician with his health; rather, by visiting the emergency room, he entrusted APH and EDMS with his health and they assigned a physician to work his case. See Márquez Vega, 116 D.P.R. at 406-09. Thus, under Puerto Rico law, APH and EDMS may be jointly liable for the negligent acts of the physicians working in the emergency room.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 45) is DENIED.