throbber
Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`MILAGROS DEL PILAR LÓPEZ-VARGAS,
`JOSÉ RAFAEL LÓPEZ-VARGAS and
`MIGUEL ANGEL LÓPEZ-VARGAS AS
`REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE
`OF JUANITA VARGAS-RIVERA AND IN
`THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES,
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 21-1284
`
`
`
`
`
`Re.: EMTALA; TORT; MEDICAL
`MALPRACTICE; HOSPITAL
`LIABILITY
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HOSPITAL
`CENTER
`DOCTORS’
`GRUPO
`DE
`INC.;
`BAYAMÓN,
`EMERGENICAS VRC, CSP; DR. ANDRÉS
`ÁVILA-GONZÁLEZ, HIS SPOUSE AND THE
`CONJUGAL
`LEGAL
`PARTNERSHIP
`CONSTITUTED BY THEM; PUERTO RICO
`MEDICAL
`DEFENSE
`INSURANCE
`COMPANY;
`SINDICATO
`DE
`ASEGURADORES PARA LA SUSCRIPCIÓN
`CONJUNTA
`DE
`SEGURO
`DE
`RESPONSABILIDAD
`PROFESIONAL
`MÉDICO-HOSPITALARIA; CONTINENTAL
`INSURANCE
`COMPANY;
`DALE
`UNDERWRITING PARTNERS NATIONAL &
`FIRE
`MARINE;
`UNKOWN
`CORPORATIONS X, Y & Z; and UNKOWN
`INSURANCE COMPANIES A, B, & C,
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`The MEMBERS OF THE ESTATE OF
`JESÚS LÓPEZ-VARGAS,
`
`
`Indispensable Party with Interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
`
`COME NOW plaintiffs Milagros Del Pilar López-Vargas (“Milagros”), José
`
`Rafael López-Vargas (“José”) and Miguel Angel López-Vargas (“Miguel”), and
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`together referred to hereinafter as the “López-Vargas Family” or the “Plaintiffs”,
`
`through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully state and pray as follows:
`
`
`1. In this suit, the López-Vargas Family seek redress for all the damages
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`caused by those who negligently let their matriarch die, Mrs. Juanita Vargas
`
`Rivera (“Juanita” or “Mrs. Vargas-Rivera”).
`
`2. The legal predicates for the suit are the Emergency Medical Treatment and
`
`Labor Act (“EMTALA”) as well as Puerto Rico’s general tort statute.
`
`3. The EMTALA violations set forth in the Complaint are based on failure to
`
`screen, as required by the statute.
`
`4. The general tort claims arise from a myriad of negligent deviations from
`
`the applicable standard of medical care in the emergency room setting.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5. The jurisdiction of the Court is predicated on the existence of a federal
`
`question jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as there
`
`are claims and allegations predicated on EMTALA, 42 U.S.C. §1395dd.
`
`6. The Honorable Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the general
`
`tort claims filed against the co-defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. §1395dd, venue is
`
`proper in this Honorable Court, as the covered hospital for EMTALA purposes is
`
`located within this District.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`8. Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was the single mother of Milagros, José and Miguel
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`López-Vargas.
`
`9. Mr. Vargas-Rivera’s husband and father to Milagros, José and Miguel, died
`
`seven years ago.
`
`10. Mrs. Vargas-Rivera also had a fourth child, Jesús López-Vargas (“Jesús”),
`
`who died on February 6th, 2017.
`
`11. Upon information and belief, at the time Jesús died, he was married and
`
`had two children, whose identity and whereabouts are unknown to plaintiffs for
`
`which reason they are included as nominal parties.
`
`12. Milagros and José López-Vargas are citizens of Bayamón, Puerto Rico.
`
`13. Miguel López-Vargas is a citizen of the State of New York.
`
`14. Due to financial constraints, when the events alleged in the Complaint
`
`happened, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was a beneficiary of “La Reforma”, Puerto Rico’s
`
`public health insurance.
`
`15. Co-defendant Doctor’s Center Hospital Bayamón, Inc. (“the Hospital”) is
`
`a for profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto
`
`Rico. According to information available at the Puerto Rico State Department
`
`website, the Hospital’s principal place of business and headquarters are located
`
`at the following address: Calle J#9, Urb. Hermanas Dávila, Bayamón, Puerto
`
`Rico, 00960.
`
`16. Doctor’s Center Hospital Bayamón, Inc. is part of a conglomerate of for-
`
`profit private hospitals and health care institutions with facilities in Puerto Rico.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`17. On June 18, 2020, the Hospital was a covered entity under the provisions
`
`of the EMTALA.
`
`18. On June 18, 2020, nurse Brenda P. Contreras-Irizarry (“Ms. Contreras-
`
`Irizarry”) was an employee of the Hospital.
`
`19. In June 2020, the provisions of the Puerto Rico Health Department
`
`Regulation Number 117 (“Reglamento del Secretario de Salud Núm. 117 para
`
`Reglamentar el Licenciamiento, Operación y Mantenimiento de los Hospitales en
`
`el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico”) promulgated on December 21, 2004
`
`(“Regulation No. 117”) applied to the Hospital, as more fully alleged hereinafter.
`
`20. Co-defendant Grupo de Emergencias VRC, CSP (“GEVRC”) is a for profit
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
`
`According to information available at the Puerto Rico State Department website,
`
`the Hospital’s principal place of business and headquarters are located at the
`
`following address: Calle Amatista # 5, Bucare, Guaynabo, PR, 00969.
`
`21. At all times alleged herein, GEVRC was the corporate entity in charge of
`
`the administration and operation of the Hospital’s Emergency Room.
`
`22. GEVRC’s duties for the administration and operation of the Emergency
`
`Room on June 18, 2020, were assigned by the Hospital.
`
`23. In June 2020, Regulation No. 117 applied to GEVRC, as more fully alleged
`
`hereinafter.
`
`24. On June 18, 2020, Dr. Victor J. Rivera Cruz was the owner, President and
`
`Director of GEVRC.
`
`25. On June 18, 2020, Dr. Victor J. Rivera Cruz was also the Hospital’s
`
`Emergency Department Director.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`26. Co-defendant Dr. Andrés Ávila-González (“Dr. Ávila”) is a general
`
`medicine physician who was on duty at the Hospital on June 18, 2020, and the
`
`healthcare professional in charge of Mrs. Vargas-Rivera at the Hospital’s
`
`Emergency Room.
`
`27. When the events that give rise to this suit occurred, Dr. Ávila was an
`
`employee of GEVRC and/or the Hospital, its subcontractor and/or had medical
`
`privileges there.
`
`28. Upon information and belief, Dr. Ávila has settled at least one other
`
`medical malpractice suit filed against him with similarities to the instant action.
`
`29. Dr. Ávila’s conjugal partnership, constituted between Dr. Ávila and his
`
`spouse, is liable for the damages caused by Dr. Ávila while engaging in those
`
`activities which benefited the conjugal partnership.
`
`30. Co-defendant Puerto Rico Medical Defense Insurance Company
`
`(“PRMDIC”) is an insurance company organized pursuant to the laws of the
`
`Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which, who at all material times alleged herein,
`
`was the primary and/or excess liability insurer of GEVRC and had issued and
`
`in force one or more policies insuring the claims referred to herein and is directly
`
`liable to the plaintiffs for the damages claimed.
`
`31. Co-defendant Sindicato de Aseguradores Para la Suscripción Conjunta
`
`de Seguro de Responsabilidad Profesional Médico-Hospitalaria (“SIMED”) is
`
`an insurance company organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
`
`Puerto Rico which, who at all material times alleged herein, was the primary
`
`and/or excess liability insurer of Dr. Ávila and/or some of the other defendants
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`and had issued and in force one or more policies insuring the claims referred to
`
`herein and is directly liable to the plaintiffs for the damages claimed.
`
`32. Co-defendant Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) is an
`
`insurance company organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
`
`Puerto Rico who at all material times alleged herein, was the primary and/or
`
`excess liability insurer of the Hospital, had issued and in force one or more
`
`policies insuring the claims referred to herein and is directly liable to the
`
`plaintiffs for the damages claimed.
`
`33. Co-defendant Dale Underwriting Partners National & Fire Marine
`
`(“Dale”) is an insurance company organized pursuant to the laws of the
`
`Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which, at all material times alleged herein, was
`
`the excess liability insurer of the Hospital, had issued and in force one or more
`
`policies insuring the claims referred to herein and is directly liable to the
`
`plaintiffs for the damages claimed and is directly liable to the plaintiffs for the
`
`damages claimed.
`
`34. The Estate of Jesús López-Vargas is made up by Mr. Jesús López-Vargas’
`
`heirs following his passing on February 6th, 2017 and who, upon information
`
`and belief, at the time was married and had two children, whose identities and
`
`whereabouts are unknown to plaintiffs.
`
`35. Unknown Corporations X, Y & Z (“Corporations X, Y & Z”), whose names
`
`are currently unknown to the López-Vargas Family, are legal entities organized
`
`under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that employed the
`
`employees, agents, administrators, owners, directors and/or subcontractors
`
`who negligently provided the subpar medical treatment that caused Mrs. Vargas-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`Rivera’s death, and who are directly liable to plaintiffs for their negligent acts
`
`and/or omissions and/or who are vicariously liable to Plaintiffs for the negligent
`
`act and/or omissions of the co-defendants and/or third parties who have yet to
`
`be identified.
`
`36. Unknown Insurance Companies A, B, & C (“Insurance Companies A, B
`
`& C”), whose names are currently unknown to the Plaintiff, is/are insurers
`
`organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which at
`
`all material times alleged herein, were the primary and/or excess liability
`
`insurers, respectively, of the any/all of the above co-defendants, including the
`
`Hospital and GEVRC, and had issued and in force one or more policies insuring
`
`some or all of the defendants for the claims referred to herein. Those insurance
`
`policies provide coverage for the damages claimed in this suit.
`
`37.
`
`All of the named defendants are jointly and severally liable to the
`
`Plaintiffs for the damages claim in this case.
`
`
`A. MRS. VARGAS-RIVERA GOES TO THE HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM
`
`IV. THE FACTS
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Late in the evening of June 17, 2020, after spending a regular family
`
`day, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera called Milagros - her daughter – complaining and
`
`afflicted with chest pain.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Shortly after 11:30 p.m. on even date, Milagros called an ambulance.
`
`Mr. Vargas-Rivera was transported to the Hospital’s emergency
`
`room by ambulance, arriving approximately at 12:34 a.m. on June 18, 2020.
`
`41.
`
`Mr. Vargas-Rivera was accompanied by Milagros.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`42.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was triaged by a nurse at 1:04 a.m. on June 18,
`
`2020.
`
`43.
`
`The Hospital’s nurse that triaged Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was Ms.
`
`Contreras-Irizarry.
`
`44.
`
`The triage sheet in the medical record shows that Mrs. Vargas-
`
`Rivera personally provided all information required from her on arrival at the
`
`Hospital’s Emergency Room.
`
`45.
`
`The only person at the Hospital to have spoken to Mrs. Vargas-
`
`Rivera while she was able to speak, was Ms. Contreras-Irizarry.
`
`46.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera referred a crushing chest pain located under the
`
`left breast, radiating towards the left flank and back, intensifying to touch.
`
`47.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was rather short in stature, 4 ft - 11 inches, and
`
`weighed 115 pounds, as estimated by the Hospital’s staff.
`
`48.
`
`The Emergency Classification assigned by Ms. Contreras-Irizarry
`
`was “Urgent”.
`
`49.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s was left on a stretcher in the hall for
`
`“Observation”.
`
`50.
`
`According to the certified medical record provided by the Hospital,
`
`the Emergency Room physician, Dr. Andrés Ávila, was notified of the patient’s
`
`condition, signs, and symptoms at 1:04 a.m.
`
`51.
`
`Even though Dr. Ávila was at the Hospital at 1:04 a.m., he failed to
`
`evaluate Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Ávila was the only physician on
`
`duty at the Hospital’s emergency room at the time of Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s arrival.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 9 of 30
`
`53.
`
`In the alternative, upon information and belief, Dr. Doe and Dr. Roe
`
`were also on duty at the Hospital’s emergency room at the time of Mrs. Vargas-
`
`Rivera’s arrival and/or oversaw the personnel responsible to provide medical
`
`care but failed to evaluate and/or treat her.
`
`54.
`
`Triage evaluation showed that Mr. Vargas-Rivera had a serious life-
`
`threatening condition requiring immediate medical intervention.
`
`55.
`
`Rather than admitting Mr. Vargas-Rivera for inpatient care, treating
`
`her or transferring her to another facility, the Hospital’s personnel left her
`
`waiting, in crushing pain, at the emergency room for four (4) hours.
`
`56.
`
`During that time, Mr. Vargas-Rivera received no medical evaluation
`
`or treatment.
`
`57.
`
`No screening was performed at the Hospital’s emergency room —
`
`personnel there did not even bother to administer any medications, ancillary
`
`tests or perform a basic medical screening for Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`58.
`
`Mr. Vargas-Rivera was left unattended at the Hospital’s Emergency
`
`Room until almost 5:00 a.m.
`
`59.
`
`The medical record contains an entry showing that, when Dr. Ávila
`
`finally examined Mrs. Vargas-Rivera four (4) hours after her arrival, she was
`
`already unresponsive, not breathing and without vital signs.
`
`60.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera suffered an acute myocardial infarction and was
`
`pronounced dead at 5:02 a.m. on June 18, 2020.
`
`61.
`
`Dr. Ávila attempted to justify his reckless medical care, or lack
`
`thereof, by telling Milagros that Juanita “was already pretty old”.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`62.
`
`Dr. Ávila and Dr. Rivera both refused to certify Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s
`
`death at the Hospital.
`
`63.
`
`The Hospital had available both the facilities and the medical
`
`personnel to provide the specialized medical intervention needed to save Mr.
`
`Vargas-Rivera’s life. But neither was deployed to do so.
`
`B. THE HOSPITAL’S PERSONNEL IGNORE THE CRIES FOR HELP FROM MRS.
`VARGAS-RIVERA’S FAMILY
`
`During the early hours of June 18, 2020, Milagros sought assistance
`
`64.
`
`from the Hospital’s personnel at the Emergency Room, as she witnessed how her
`
`mother’s health began to rapidly deteriorate.
`
`65.
`
` Among other things, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s daughter told the
`
`Hospital’s nurses and doctors that her mother needed medical attention. But
`
`no one came to examine Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`66.
`
`At approximately 4:00 a.m., Juanita informed that she needed to
`
`urinate and, given her mother’s acute pain, Milagros pleaded for the nurses’
`
`assistance, again to no avail.
`
`67.
`
`At approximately 4:15 a.m., Milagros inquired with the nurses
`
`again. She also informed that her mother could not hold it any longer and had
`
`voided herself.
`
`68.
`
`Shortly after 4:15 a.m., Milagros saw Dr. Ávila passing by and
`
`questioned him directly about the excessive delay in evaluating her mother. Dr.
`
`Ávila stated that he needed to see another patient.
`
`69.
`
`When Dr. Ávila finally examined Juanita at almost 5:00 a.m., she
`
`was already unresponsive, not breathing and without vital signs.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`70.
`
` Before or after Dr. Ávila’s intervention at almost 5:00 a.m. on June
`
`18, 2020, the medical record shows that Mrs. Vargas-Rivera received no medical
`
`screening from the Hospital’s physicians in the early hours of that day.
`
`V.
`
`EMTALA CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`A. THE EMTALA STANDARD
`
`All the allegations stated above are incorporated by reference as if
`
`71.
`
`fully set forth and restated herein.
`
`72.
`
`Congress enacted EMTALA intending “that all patients be treated
`
`fairly when they arrive in the emergency department of a participating hospital
`
`and that all patients who need some treatment will get a first response at
`
`minimum and will not simply be turned away.” Reynolds v. Maine General
`
`Health, 84 218 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.2000), citing Baber v. Hospital Corp. of America,
`
`977 F.2d 872, 880 (4th Cir.1992).
`
`73.
`
`EMTALA provides a private cause of action against a covered
`
`hospital to redress all the damages suffered from a violation of its provisions. 42
`
`U.S.C. §1395dd(d)(2)(A).
`
`74.
`
`As pertinent here, EMTALA sets forth core obligations that covered
`
`hospitals must satisfy.
`
`75.
`
`One of the EMTALA’s core obligation mandates covered hospitals to
`
`provide a “proper screening examination” aimed at determining whether the
`
`person who requests emergency medical care presents an “emergency medical
`
`condition.” §1395dd(a)
`
`76.
`
`Even though EMTALA does not specify what constitutes a “proper
`
`medical screening”, the First Circuit has interpreted the term as calling for an
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`examination “reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions that
`
`may be afflicting symptomatic patients and [to] provide[] that level of screening
`
`uniformly to all those who present substantially similar complaints.” Cruz–
`
`Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 717 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir. 2013). This
`
`requirement is in place to ensure “that there be some screening procedure, and
`
`that it be administered even-handedly.” Id.
`
`77.
`
`In turn, the term “emergency medical condition,” as pertinent here,
`
`is defined by the statute as
`
`a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of
`sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence
`of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected
`to result in--(i) placing the health of the individual … in serious
`jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii)
`serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
`
`§1395dd(e)(1).
`
`As long established by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, to prevail
`
`
`
`
`78.
`
`in an EMTALA claim
`
`a plaintiff must show that (1) the hospital is a participating
`hospital, covered by EMTALA, that operates an emergency
`department (or an equivalent treatment facility); (2) the patient
`arrived at the facility seeking treatment; and (3) the hospital
`either (a) did not afford the patient an appropriate screening in
`order to determine if she had an emergency medical condition,
`or (b) bade farewell to the patient (whether by turning her away,
`discharging her, or improvidently transferring her) without first
`stabilizing the emergency medical condition.
`
`Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1190 (1st Cir.
`1995).
`
`B. THE HOSPITAL VIOLATED EMTALA BY FAILING TO SCREEN MRS.
`VARGAS-RIVERA UPON HER ARRIVAL TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM
`
`
`79.
`
`All the allegations stated above are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth and restated herein.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`80.
`
`On June 18, 2020, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera arrived to the Hospital’s
`
`emergency room via ambulance afflicted with and complaining of chest pain.
`
`81.
`
`Thirty (30) minutes after her arrival to the emergency room, Mrs.
`
`Vargas-Rivera was triaged by nurse Brenda P. Contreras-Irizarry.
`
`82.
`
`At Triage, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera pulse was irregular with a rate of 100,
`
`respiratory rate 20 with normal respiratory effort, blood pressure 145/89,
`
`temperature 36.7 degrees centigrade, oxygen saturation 99%, and Glasgow
`
`Coma Scale normal at 15.
`
`83.
`
`Mrs. Vargas was an 88-year-old female with a past medical history
`
`of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, hypothyroidism and peripheral vascular
`
`disease.
`
`84.
`
`The Hospital had knowledge of Mr. Vargas-Rivera’s past medical
`
`history.
`
`85.
`
`Mr. Vargas-Rivera’s pain was 7-8 on a scale of 10 and was described
`
`as crushing, acute, continuous and associated with anxiety.
`
`86.
`
`At the time, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was taking a medication called
`
`verapamil.
`
`87.
`
`An 88-year-old patient with the above history, presenting
`
`complaints like Mrs. Vargas-Rivera, taking verapamil and with a heart rate of
`
`100, has high likelihood of having a severe medical condition causing her
`
`complaints.
`
`88.
`
`Ms. Contreras-Irizarry documented that no electrocardiogram (EKG)
`
`was performed on Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 14 of 30
`
`89.
`
`Pursuant to the Hospital’s written policies, emergency room patients
`
`must be triaged upon arrival to determine the severity of their conditions and
`
`then be classified in one of three categories: (i) Emergent; (ii) Urgent; or (iii)
`
`Ambulatory.
`
`90.
`
`At the Hospital, “Emergent” Category encompasses the most serious
`
`conditions, including chest pain, abdominal pain, cardiopulmonary arrest,
`
`among others, and the Categories “Urgent” and “Ambulatory” encompass
`
`progressively less serious conditions.
`
`91.
`
`Nurse Brenda P. Contreras-Irizarry failed to follow the Hospital’s
`
`protocol when she placed Mrs. Vargas-Rivera in “Urgent” Category despite her
`
`complaint of chest pain that should have placed her in “Emergent” Category, and
`
`this departure from the Hospital’s protocol violated EMTALA’s appropriate
`
`screening requirement.
`
`92.
`
`On June 18, 2020, the Hospital had emergency room protocols that
`
`described their general procedures for evaluating patients with complaints, signs
`
`or symptoms similar to Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`93.
`
`At all material times alleged herein, the Hospital’s emergency room
`
`protocols required that a patient with conditions such as chest pain, high blood
`
`pressure, abdominal pain, cardiopulmonary arrest, among others, be considered
`
`emergencies and receive immediate medical attention.
`
`94.
`
`At all material times alleged herein, the Hospital protocols required
`
`that a patient presenting to the emergency room with chest pain be placed on a
`
`cardiac monitor, an electrocardiogram (EKG) performed, be initiated on an I.V.,
`
`receive a physical exam, obtain blood tests and administer a chest x-ray.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 15 of 30
`
`95.
`
`At the Hospital, all patients that present to the Hospital’s emergency
`
`room with chest pain are placed on a cardiac monitor, an electrocardiogram
`
`(EKG) is performed, are initiated of an I.V., receive a physical exam, obtain blood
`
`tests and are administered a chest x-ray.
`
`96.
`
`Because Mr. Vargas-Rivera received neither, she was provided with
`
`disparate treatment in violation of EMTALA’s screening obligations at the
`
`Hospital’s emergency room.
`
`97.
`
`Both the Hospital’s nursing staff and Dr. Ávila had the obligation
`
`under the Hospital’s protocols to place Mrs. Vargas-Rivera on a cardiac monitor,
`
`perform electrocardiogram (EKG), initiate an I.V., perform a physical exam,
`
`obtain blood tests and administer a chest x-ray
`
`98.
`
`On June 18, 2020, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was never placed on a
`
`cardiac monitor.
`
`99.
`
`On June 18, 2020, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was not initiated on an I.V.
`
`100.
`
`On June 18, 2020, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was not administered an
`
`EKG.
`
`101.
`
`On June 18, 2020, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was not administered a chest
`
`x-ray.
`
`102.
`
`No one at the Hospital performed a physical evaluation for Mrs.
`
`Vargas-Rivera before she had already coded.
`
`103.
`
`No one at the Hospital even attempted to establish a medical
`
`diagnosis for Mrs. Vargas-Rivera on June 18, 2020.
`
`104.
`
`No one at the Hospital ordered any diagnostic test for Mrs. Vargas-
`
`Rivera on June 18, 2020.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 16 of 30
`
`105.
`
`The Hospital failed to employ ancillary services routinely available
`
`to its emergency department in order to identify Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s emergency
`
`medical condition.
`
`106.
`
`The triage assessment performed at the Hospital’s emergency room
`
`failed to result in a patient categorization consistent with the perilous, life-
`
`threatening symptoms Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was experiencing in connection with
`
`her chest pain.
`
`107.
`
`With Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s age, past medical history and presenting
`
`complaints that were very concerning for the presence of an emergent medical
`
`condition, required Emergent (not Urgent) triage categorization and medical
`
`evaluation.
`
`108.
`
`The Hospital’s nurse noted that Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was suffering
`
`from a crushing and intense pain located under her left breast radiating to her
`
`left flank and back, intensifying to touch.
`
`109.
`
`At 1:04 a.m. the Hospital’s nurse also noted that Dr. Ávila was
`
`notified about Mrs. Vargas-Rivera condition.
`
`110.
`
`Even though Mrs. Vargas-Rivera arrived at the Hospital seeking
`
`emergency medical care, Hospital personnel at the emergency room refused to
`
`provide a proper medical screening, or any other medical care to her in over four
`
`(4) hours.
`
`111.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s arrival time to the Hospital’s emergency room
`
`was 12:42 a.m. and no doctor evaluated her in four (4) hours.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 17 of 30
`
`112.
`
`In other words, from 12:42 a.m. when Mrs. Vargas-Rivera arrived
`
`at the Hospital’s Emergency Room, it took the Hospital’s physicians four hours
`
`to first examine her.
`
`113.
`
`It was not until Mrs. Vargas-Rivera had already coded that an initial
`
`cursory evaluation by Dr. Ávila was performed at approximately 4:40 a.m.
`
`114.
`
`In fact, Dr. Ávila’s only medical evaluation assessment documented
`
`in the medical record is postmortem, initiated at 6:42 a.m. and signed at 6:46
`
`a.m. on June 18, 2020.
`
`115.
`
`This 4-hour delay in performing a medical screening exam of Mrs.
`
`Vargas-Rivera constitutes a violation of EMTALA.
`
`116.
`
`Put differently, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera never received a medical
`
`screening exam reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions that
`
`were afflicting her.
`
`117.
`
`On June 18, 2020, the Medicine Department in the Hospital
`
`consisted of the department of Internal Medicine and the services of Neurology,
`
`Nephrology, Hematology, Endocrinology, Pneumology, Infectious Disease and
`
`Cardiovascular Disease; Emergency Room Physicians; Family Medicine
`
`Specialists, and Nuclear Medicine, among others.
`
`118.
`
`On June 18, 2020, the Surgery in the Hospital consisted of the
`
`department of General Surgery and the services of Vascular Surgery,
`
`Anesthesiology, Pathology, and Radiology, and Radiotherapy, among others.
`
`119.
`
`EMTALA requires that all patients who arrive at a hospital’s
`
`emergency room seeking emergency medical care receive a proper medical
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 18 of 30
`
`screening. In failing to screen Mr. Vargas-Rivera, the Hospital’s emergency room
`
`personnel fragrantly violated EMTALA.
`
`120.
`
`In not providing the patient with a proper medical screening for four
`
`(4) hours after presenting to the Hospital’s emergency room, the screening
`
`provided Mr. Vargas-Rivera differed in significant respects to the screening
`
`generally provided to similarly situated patients.
`
`121.
`
`Absent a proper medical screening, no one at the Hospital
`
`determined that Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was suffering from an acute coronary
`
`syndrome or acute myocardial infarction.
`
`122.
`
`Had an EKG been performed and laboratory testing been obtained
`
`shortly after her triage, Mrs. Vargas-Rivera would have been found to have been
`
`suffering from acute coronary syndrome or acute myocardial infarction.
`
`123.
`
`Had a proper medical screening been conducted, emergent therapies
`
`would have been initiated, which could have included, but would not be limited
`
`to, administration of aspirin, anticoagulation, cardiac monitor, treatment for
`
`arrythmia, correction of electrolyte abnormalities, cardiology consult, hospital
`
`admission or transfer and further treatment, and Mrs. Vargas-Rivera would have
`
`survived.
`
`124.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera was denied access to the services available at
`
`the Hospital’s emergency room and she died as a result of such denial.
`
`125.
`
`Milagros, José and Miguel López-Vargas also suffered anguish and
`
`emotional distress in direct consequence of the Hospital’s EMTALA violation
`
`inflicted upon Mrs. Vargas-Rivera.
`
`VI. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 19 of 30
`
`C. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE UNDER PUERTO RICO
`CIVIL CODE, ARTICLES 1802 AND 1803
`
`All the allegations stated above are incorporated by reference as if
`
`126.
`
`fully set forth and restated herein.
`
`127.
`
`Dr. Ávila, Dr. Doe and Dr. Roe and all Hospital personnel who either
`
`negligently provided subpar medical care or negligently failed to provide medical
`
`care to Mrs. Vargas-Rivera on June 18, 2020, and are jointly and severally liable
`
`for the damages claimed in this case.
`
`128.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s health deteriorated significantly and
`
`irreversibly under co-defendants’ watch because they negligently failed to
`
`provide emergency medical care that would comply with the applicable standard
`
`of care.
`
`129.
`
`Under the provisions of Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
`
`applicable in this case pursuant to Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938),
`
`all co-defendants are jointly and severally liable for the negligent acts and
`
`omissions that caused Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s death.
`
`130.
`
`Had co-defendants properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs.
`
`Vargas-Rivera’s emergency condition at the Hospital’s Emergency Room, she
`
`would not have died.
`
`131.
`
`Co-defendants failed to delineate an emergency care plan to identify
`
`and treat the root of Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s chest pain.
`
`132.
`
`Instead, co-defendants left her waiting unattended in the hall at the
`
`Hospital’s Emergency Room for more than 4 hours.
`
`133.
`
`Co-defendants negligently failed to promptly place Mrs. Vargas-
`
`Rivera in a cardiac monitor, in a room that was appropriate to perform CPR,
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 20 of 30
`
`administer an EKG and a chest x-rays, order diagnostic tests, initiate I.V., and
`
`physically examine the patient, as required under internal policies and protocols,
`
`the applicable regulations and the standard of care.
`
`134.
`
`When Mrs. Vargas-Rivera arrived to the Hospital’s emergency room
`
`complaining of crushing pain under her left breast radiating to the left flank and
`
`back, the Hospital’s personnel and Dr. Ávila knew or should have known that
`
`this placed Mrs. Vargas-Rivera at extreme risk of acute coronary syndrome or
`
`acute myocardial infarction, and the standard of care required an EKG be
`
`obtained, that the patient be placed on a cardiac monitor, lab work ordered
`
`STAT, an IV started and the patient be located in a room that would be
`
`appropriate to perform CPR . None of this was done for Mrs. Vargas-Rivera and
`
`she died as a result.
`
`135.
`
`Dr. Ávila and the Hospital’s emergency room personnel negligently
`
`failed to provide Mrs. Vargas-Rivera medical care compliant with the standard of
`
`care. Among other things, that personnel failed to (i) provide proper
`
`anticoagulation treatment; (ii) secure timely consultation with the required
`
`specialists; (iii) provide other proper medical treatment needed to stabilize Mrs.
`
`Vargas-Rivera’s health condition and/or (iv) procure a timely transfer to another
`
`hospital for needed emergency treatment.
`
`136.
`
`When Dr. Ávila finally decided to evaluate Mrs. Vargas-Rivera, she
`
`was already unresponsive, not breathing and without vital signs.
`
`137.
`
`Mrs. Vargas-Rivera’s condition considerably worsened during the 4-
`
`hour period between the time she arrived at the Hospital’s Emergency
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01284 Document 1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 21 of 30
`
`Department and when Dr. Ávila finally evaluated her, after she had already
`
`coded.
`
`138.
`
`If Dr. Ávila was busy with the care of other patients in the emergency
`
`room on June 18, 2020, then the standard of care required that he emergently
`
`arrange for the charge nurse, Emergency Department director, and/or hospital
`
`administrator to assist in this process, but he failed to do so.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket