Nieves-Romero v. United States
715 F.3d 375
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Nieves-Romero, a wheelchair user, sues under FTCA for injuries from a loose toilet seat at the VA Hospital in San Juan.
- District court granted summary judgment, concluding no evidence of defendant's knowledge of the dangerous condition.
- Plaintiff opposed but provided no counter-statement of material facts; government’s facts deemed admitted.
- There was a maintenance contract with DB&W; a cleaner worked the restroom and reported no prior problems.
- Environment of Care Team conducted inspections roughly every four months and found nothing amiss.
- District court later extended discovery; summary judgment was granted before discovery closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the VA have actual or constructive knowledge of the loose toilet seat? | Nieves-Romero argues constructive knowledge exists from routine maintenance and inspections. | VA had no evidence of actual knowledge and no probative basis to infer constructive knowledge. | No genuine issue; no evidence of knowledge supports summary judgment. |
| Did the extended discovery period affect the propriety of the summary judgment? | Discovery extension should delay ruling to allow more evidence gathering. | Court acted within discretion; extension did not require withholding judgment. | No abuse of discretion; ruling proper despite extension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houlton Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 1999) (summary-judgment standard favoring nonmovant but strict on genuine disputes)
- Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermkt. Co., 670 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2012) (premises liability requires actual or constructive notice of danger)
- McCarthy v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1995) (opposition to summary judgment cannot rely on absence of evidence)
- Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (Rule 56(d) requires timely invocation to obtain more facts)
- Jones v. Secord, 684 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (discusses timing and handling of Rule 56(d))
- C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 137 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 1998) (cannot rely on belated Rule 56(d) without timely invocation)