USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





No. 97-1511



                       ROGELIO FUENTES, ET AL.,



                        Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                  v.



                        RAFAEL ZAPATA, ET AL.,



                        Defendants, Appellees.



                                             





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



           [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]



                                             



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,



                      Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,



                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.



                                             







     Jose A. Pagan Nieves for appellants.

     Igor Dominguez, with whom Igor Dominguez Law offices, was on

brief for appellees.





                                             

                           April 13, 1998



                                                       Per Curiam.  Plaintiffs and their conjugal partnership

appeal from a district court judgment dismissing their claims

against the individual members of the credentialing committee at

Hospital San Fransisco ["HSF"] for negligently extending emergency

room privileges to Dr. Victor Medina, who attended plaintiffs'

five-year-old daughter immediately before her death on November 25,

1989.

          Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Medina and HSF on

July 11, 1991, for alleged negligent treatment of their daughter. 

Other defendants were added through various amendments to the

complaint.  On January 25, 1994, plaintiffs released HSF from "any

claim for . . . damages suffered by the plaintiffs past, present,

and future, related to the treatment and hospitalization that

[their daughter] received at [HSF] . . . ."  As contemplated by the

settlement agreement, plaintiffs thereafter stipulated to the

dismissal of all claims against HSF.

          Six months later, however, plaintiffs filed their Fourth

Amended Complaint, claiming that the individual members of the HSF

credentialing committee "negligently selected, qualified and

authorized Dr. Victor Medina to practice" in the emergency room

notwithstanding an alleged lack of professional qualifications and

training.  The district court ultimately dismissed the Fourth

Amended Complaint in its entirety, on the ground that all claims

were time-barred.  We review its ruling de novo.  See Gonzalez-

Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir. 1990).

          As the Fourth Amended Complaint was not filed within the

one-year limitations period prescribed in P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31,

 5298(2), plaintiffs sought to demonstrate that the running of the

limitations period had been tolled.  See Rodriguez Narvaez v.

Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 1990).  Nevertheless, we need

not address appellants' tolling arguments since the cause of action

asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint (i.e., negligent

credentialing) is not identical to that in the original complaint

(i.e., negligent treatment).  See id. at 43 (although "tolling the

statute [of limitations] as to one jointly and severally liable

defendant tolls it as to all, . . . the tolling is effective with

regard only to identical causes of action.  The statute oflimitations is not tolled for all claims arising out of the sameset of facts.") (emphasis added); see also Fernandez v. Chardon,

681 F.2d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 1982) (same).

          Whereas the original complaint made no mention of Dr.

Medina's allegedly deficient professional qualifications, the

Fourth Amended Complaint asserted that the members of the

credentialing committee "negligently selected, qualified and

authorized Dr. Victor Medina to practice medicine [in the HSF

emergency room.]  At the time of the events, Dr. Medina was not

qualified nor had the training necessary to treat Anes Fuentes . .

. ."  See, e.g., Marquez Vega v. Martinez Rosado, 116 D.P.R. 397

(1985) (recognizing that, in Puerto Rico, "public policy dictates

that . . . the hospital has the continuous obligation to protect

the health of its patients by . . . carefully selecting the

physicians who . . . are granted the privilege of using its

facilities . . . ."); see also, e.g., Browning v. Burt, 613 N.E.2d

993, 1004 (Ohio 1993) ("Negligent credentialing claims arise out of

the hospital's failure to satisfy its independent duty to grant and

continue staff privileges only to competent physicians.").

          The legal responsibility of a hospital to extend

privileges only to qualified professionals is distinct from its

vicarious liability for the torts of the professionals to whom it

extends hospital privileges.  See, e.g., Johnson v. Misericordia

Community Hosp., 301 N.W.2d 156, 165 (Wisc. 1981) (citing with

approval cases holding "that a hospital has a direct and

independent responsibility to its patients, over and above that of

the physicians and surgeons practicing therein, to take reasonable

steps to . . . insure that its medical staff is qualified for the

privileges granted").  Since the original complaint asserted a

cause of action for negligent treatment, its filing did not toll

the limitations period with respect to the distinct cause of action

for negligent credentialing asserted in the Fourth Amended

Complaint.

          The district court judgment is affirmed.  Costs are

awarded to appellees.

          SO ORDERED.