Samora v. Hospital HIMA San Pablo Fajardo
3:16-cv-01110
D.P.R.Sep 29, 2017Background
- In August 2008 Diane Darlene Samora suffered a cardiac event while visiting Puerto Rico, was taken to HIMA San Pablo Fajardo, later transferred by helicopter to Centro Médico, and died on August 11, 2008.
- Plaintiffs (husband and son) originally sued various defendants in federal court in 2009 asserting EMTALA and Puerto Rico tort claims; that action resolved in part and plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed HIMA without prejudice in February 2012.
- Plaintiffs filed a new federal suit against HIMA on January 21, 2016 (more than seven years after Mrs. Samora’s death), asserting EMTALA and medical malpractice (Article 1802) claims.
- HIMA moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the EMTALA claim is barred by EMTALA’s two-year limitations period and (2) plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie Article 1802 malpractice case.
- The court found the EMTALA claim accrued August 4, 2008, and was time-barred in the 2016 suit; plaintiffs’ earlier 2009 federal filing did not preserve/toll the EMTALA deadline for the 2016 action.
- The court denied summary judgment on the Article 1802 malpractice claim because material factual disputes remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ EMTALA claim is time-barred | Samora contends earlier federal suit (filed 2009) preserves/tolls EMTALA claim | HIMA argues EMTALA has a strict 2-year statute and the 2016 suit was filed after the deadline | Court: EMTALA claim dismissed with prejudice as time-barred (accrual 8/4/2008; no tolling) |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to EMTALA | Plaintiffs assert tolling/equitable doctrines save claim | HIMA contends EMTALA lacks tolling provision and plaintiffs failed to show equitable tolling basis | Court: Plaintiffs failed to establish equitable tolling; no tolling applied |
| Whether Article 1802 malpractice claim fails as a matter of law | Plaintiffs maintain malpractice claim is supported by disputed facts | HIMA argues plaintiffs cannot make prima facie malpractice showing | Court: Summary judgment denied on Article 1802; genuine factual disputes preclude dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (describing EMTALA’s anti-dumping purpose)
- Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184 (1st Cir. 1995) (EMTALA limits hospitals’ refusal to treat uninsured emergency patients)
- Reynolds v. MaineGeneral Health, 218 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000) (EMTALA is not a federal malpractice statute)
- Power v. Arlington Hosp. Ass'n, 42 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 1994) (EMTALA’s two-year limitations period governs suits)
- Vogel v. Linde, 23 F.3d 78 (4th Cir. 1994) (strict application of EMTALA limitations; tolling disfavored)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) (Congressional statute of limitations is definitive)
- Saltares v. Hosp. San Pablo Inc., 371 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.P.R. 2005) (EMTALA claim accrues on date of alleged violation)
- Borgos-Taboas v. HIMA San Pablo Hosp. Bayamon, 832 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.P.R. 2011) (noting uncertainty on equitable tolling for EMTALA)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment materiality/genuine dispute standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must show more than metaphysical doubt to avoid summary judgment)