Santos-Arrieta et al v. Hospital Del Maestro, Inc. et al
Filing
103
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion in Limine. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 7/13/2018. (OB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
DAMARIS SANTOS ARRIETA and
GUSTAVO QUERALES SALCEDO,
in representation of their minor son GQS,
CIVIL NO. 15-3114 (MEL)
Plaintiff,
v.
HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO, et al.,
Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a motion in limine filed by Dr. Félix Villar and Hospital Del
Maestro, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) to preclude at trial the mention of hypoxia-ischemia,
seizure, febrile seizures, or cerebral palsy. ECF No. 60. Damaris Santos Arrieta and Gustavo
Querales Salcedo, in representation of their minor son GQS (“Plaintiff”), filed a response in
opposition, and Defendants’ filed a reply. ECF Nos. 71; 74.1 On June 11, 2018, this court ordered
the Plaintiff’s counsel to “cite to any of their experts' reports or to any medical record pertaining
to this case that makes reference to hypoxia-ischemia, seizures, febrile seizures and cerebral palsy.
If plaintiffs are unable to provide any such reference, plaintiffs shall explain why the court should
allow into evidence conditions that are not mentioned anywhere in the medical record or in the
plaintiffs' expert reports.” ECF No. 86. Plaintiff filed a motion in compliance to this order on
June 18, 2018. ECF No. 93. A Daubert hearing was held on June 19, 2018. ECF No. 99.
Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition attempts to change the terms that should be excluded to “hypoxia, hypoxic
ischemia, seizures, febrile seizures, brain injury [and] cerebral palsy.” ECF No. 74, at 9–10. However, Defendants’
motion in limine is limited to the terms it addressed in its original motion and those addressed at the hearing: hypoxiaischemia, seizure, febrile seizures, and cerebral palsy. See ECF No. 60.
1
I.
ANALYSIS
Without citing to a single case or statute in their motion, Defendants’ make the argument
that the plain language of the medical records do not include the terms requested to be precluded
and thus “[a]ny mention of these words during the expert testimony, in addition to being baseless,
would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.
would be highly prejudicial to the defendants in the case.” ECF No. 60. Plaintiff notes that
Defendants did not cite to authority, while citing to none themselves, and argue that by not
attaching the medical records to their motion, it would be impossible for this court or themselves
to verify Defendants’ allegations. ECF No. 71, at 13. At the hearing, Defendants’ argued that “in
medicine, diagnosis are diagnosis.” Thus, if there is a hypoxic event, then you will find in the
record the word hypoxia. Hr’g, June 19, 2018, at 2:46 PM. On the other hand, Plaintiff argued
that “all these words that they are trying to exclude are a matter of medical semantics, whether you
call ischemia desaturation and severe retraction, doctors know what that means, it means
ischemia.” Therefore, the fact that some words are used interchangeably does not mean those
words should be prohibited at trial. Hr’g, at 3:13–3:14 PM.
A.
Cerebral Palsy
The parties agree that there is no evidence in the record as to cerebral palsy. Thus, at the
trial, there will be no mention that Plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy. Hr’g, at 9:37–9:38 AM.
B.
Seizures or Febrile Seizures
Plaintiff attached to their motion in compliance a medical record containing a patient visit
report by Dr. Ananthi Rathinam, dated May 11, 2011. ECF No. 93-1. Within this record there is
a portion entitled “impression/plan” that states that “[t]he patient was diagnosed with” various
conditions including “convulsions nec” and “febrile convulsions.” Id. at 3. At the hearing held
2
on June 19, 2018, Dr. Carolyn Crawford (“Dr. Crawford”) testified that “seizures and convulsions
are used interchangeably.”
Hr’g, at 11:00 AM.
Defendants argued, however, that what
Dr. Rathinam really meant was that he was trying to rule out possible conditions, including
seizures. This is supported by a note under the impression/plan, which states that a routine EEG
was requested “to rule out subclinical seizures which is commonly noted in kids with autism.”
ECF No. 93-1, at 3.
Nonetheless, the medical record lists convulsions and febrile convulsions as a diagnosis
for the Plaintiff. Thus, based on Dr. Crawford’s testimony, the terms “seizures” and “febrile
seizures” will be allowed at trial.
C.
Hypoxia-Ischemia
Plaintiff argues that by not attaching the medical records to the motion in limine the
Defendants made it impossible to verify their arguments in regards to the terms here at issue. ECF
No. 71, at 13. This argument is untenable. It should have been a simple task for Plaintiff to
overcome this hurdle by complying with the court’s order and citing to any (not necessarily all) of
the expert reports or medical records that make reference to the words at issue. See ECF No. 86.
As discussed above, Plaintiff was able to do this, in a sense, in regards to the term “seizure.” ECF
No. 93. Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to do so for the other terms prior to the hearing.
At the Daubert hearing, Dr. Crawford clarified what the terms “hypoxia” and “ischemia”
mean. Dr. Crawford stated that she would define hypoxia as a “low amount of oxygen.” Hr’g, at
10:46 AM. Dr. Crawford also defined the term “cyanosis” as a blue color that occurs when there
is an inadequate oxygen or a low amount of oxygen in the blood. Hr’g, at 10:46 AM. Dr. Crawford
read the term “developed central cyanosis” from a medical record that she described as the record
of the newborn infant at Hospital del Maestro. Hr’g, at 10:46–10:48 AM. Dr. Crawford did
3
reference this in her export report as she wrote: “Mistakenly, the baby was admitted to the normal
nursery where he quickly developed central cyanosis, and was transferred to the NICU and placed
in a 50% oxygen oxyhood.” ECF No. 57-3, at 3. Thus, even though the term “hypoxia” is not
included in Dr. Crawford’s expert report and may not appear in any medical records, synonymous
terms—from Dr. Crawford’s perspective—are used both in her export report and in the medical
records.
Dr. Crawford testified that ischemia means “inadequate blood flow,” which means that a
child will be treated by giving him blood pressure medicine to support the blood pressure and
improve circulation. Hr’g, at 12:04 PM. During her testimony, Dr. Crawford discussed an order
from the Municipal Hospital that was written on “August 22,” which according to Dr. Crawford
was after Plaintiff had suffered a ruptured lung with significant hypoxia and problems with
circulation. Hr’g, at 10:52 AM. Within this testimony, Dr. Crawford discussed the use of
Dobutrex for Plaintiff, which Dr. Crawford described is a “pressor” that is used to support blood
pressure. Hr’g, at 10:52 AM. She stated that this drug is not used casually, but only used when
necessary as it is a serious drug that has side effects. Hr’g, at 10:52 AM. Thus, implicit in
Dr. Crawford’s testimony is that the treatment of Plaintiff with blood pressure medicine could
suggest that he had ischemia. Although the term “ischemia” may not be found in the medical
records, there was enough evidence provided at the hearing to suggest that synonymous terms or
descriptions (once again, synonymous according to Dr. Crawford) were used.2 In a situation such
as this where conditions are described by synonymous terms or symptoms in the medical records,
it is appropriate to allow these terms into trial where “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation
of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and
2
Defendants did not call any witnesses at the Daubert hearing to establish that the terms are not in fact synonymous.
4
appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993) (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987)). Thus, the terms
“hypoxia”, “ischemia,” or “hypoxia-ischemia” will be allowed at trial.
II.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude the words hypoxia-
ischemia, seizures, febrile seizures, or cerebral palsy during trial (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The term “cerebral palsy” is hereby precluded from being used at trial.
However, the terms hypoxia-ischemia, seizures, and febrile seizures will be allowed.
IT IS SO ORDERED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of July, 2018.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?