Quijano et al v. Ritter et al
Filing
111
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part, denying in part 63 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Baylor Regional Medical Center at Grapevine. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 7/14/2011) (dnc) (Main Document 111 replaced to correct signature date on 8/3/2011) (drh).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KIMBERLY KNEPPER-QUIJANO, as next
§
friend of Emmanuel M. Quijano, an
§
incapacitated adult; and KIMBERLY
§
KNEPPER-QUIJANO, as next friend of
§
Nathaniel Knepper-Quijano, Susannah Knepper-§
Quijano, and Elizabeth Knepper-Quijano, minor §
children,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
v.
§
§
BAYLOR REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER §
AT GRAPEVINE, TIMOTHY E. RITTER
§
M.D., and TEXAS DIGESTIVE DISEASE
§
CONSULTANTS, P.A.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
No. 3:10-cv-1009-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Baylor Regional Medical Center at Grapevine s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry #63]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this medical negligence action against Defendants Dr. Timothy Ritter,
M.D., Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, P.A., and Baylor Regional Medical Center at
Grapevine, alleging that injuries suffered by Emmanuel M. Quijano after undergoing an
esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed by Dr. Ritter at Baylor Regional, with the
assistance of nurses employed by Baylor Regional, was the result of negligence. Regarding
Baylor Regional, Plaintiffs allege two theories of liability. First, Plaintiffs allege that Baylor
1
Regional s nurses were negligent in administering moderate sedation to Quijano during the EGD
procedure, and that Baylor Regional is liable for their negligence. Second, Plaintiffs allege that
Baylor Regional was negligent by failing to formulate, implement, and enforce proper policies
and procedures regarding the administration of moderate sedation.
On May 23, 2011, Baylor Regional filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, to which
Plaintiffs did not respond. In their Motion, Baylor Regional argues that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact regarding Plaintiffs negligence claims because the only evidence of the
standards of care applicable to the nurses and to Baylor Regional is the proposed expert
testimony of Dr. Hendrikus Lemmens, which Baylor Regional sought to exclude in a separately
filed Daubert motion. Similarly, Baylor Regional argues that no genuine dispute of material fact
exists regarding causation because the only evidence of causation also is Dr. Lemmens s
proposed expert testimony.
On July 28, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the parties various Daubert motions,
including Baylor Regional s motion to exclude Dr. Lemmens s proposed expert testimony
[Docket Entry #62], which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Court excluded the
testimony of Dr. Lemmens regarding the standard of care for the nurses, but otherwise denied
Baylor Regional s objections to his testimony.
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). If a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, then there is a
genuine dispute of material fact. Gates v. Tex. Dep t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d
404, 417 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The
2
moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate
the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986); Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998). Once the
movant carries its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show that summary
judgment is inappropriate, by designating specific facts beyond the pleadings that prove the
existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at
250; Fields v. City of S. Houston, 922 F.2d 1183, 1187 (5th Cir. 1991). In determining whether a
genuine dispute of material fact exists, factual controversies are construed in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant, but only if both parties have introduced evidence showing that a
controversy exists. Lynch Props., 140 F.3d at 625 (citation omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
To prevail on a medical negligence cause of action under Texas law, a plaintiff must
prove 1) a duty by the physician/nurse/hospital to act according to applicable standards of care;
2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; 3) an injury; and 4) a causal connection between
the breach of care and the injury. Clements v. Conard, 21 S.W.3d 514, 522 (Tex. App.
Amarillo 2000, pet. denied). Further, the plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care
through expert testimony. Edwards v. United States, 519 F.2d 1137, 1139 (5th Cir. 1975) ( [A]
plaintiff, to recover for injuries suffered from medical negligence, must show, by expert
testimony, that the treating physicians breached the standard of care. (emphasis added)).
Here, the only expert testimony Plaintiffs offer on the standard of care for Baylor
Regional s nurses is that of Dr. Lemmens, and his testimony on the subject has been excluded by
the Court. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to designate specific facts beyond the pleadings that
prove the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to the standard of care applicable to
3
the nurses, and Baylor Regional is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff s theory of
liability based on the nurses conduct. Baylor Regional s Motion for Summary Judgment is thus
GRANTED as to that theory of liability.
However, Baylor Regional s Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs other theory of
liability that it was negligent in formulating, implementing, and enforcing proper policies and
procedures regarding moderate sedation. The only argument Baylor Regional offered for
summary judgment on that theory was premised on the Court s excluding the other portions of
Dr. Lemmens s testimony, which the Court did not do. Therefore, Baylor Regional has failed to
show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Plaintiffs claim related to the
moderate-sedation policy.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Baylor Regional s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Plaintiffs claims
based on the conduct of Baylor s nurses, and otherwise DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
August 1, 2011.
_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
4
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?