Gladys Mendoza v. Inspira Medical Center Vinelan
Gladys Mendoza v. Inspira Medical Center Vinelan
Opinion
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________
No. 19-3434 _____________
GLADYS MENDOZA, Personal Representative of Elias Mendoza, Appellant
v.
INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTER VINELAND; SOUTH JERSEY HEALTH CARE; INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; ANDREW ZINN, MD; THE HEART HOUSE; NAEEM M. AMIN, M.D.; KIDNEY AND HYPERTENSION SPECIALISTS, P.A. __________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-16-cv-01337) District Judge: The Honorable Noel L. Hillman ____________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 27, 2020
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: June 2, 2020) _____________________
OPINION* _____________________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In 2014, Elias Mendoza was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit at Inspira Medical
Center Vineland (Vineland) with shortness of breath. Mendoza had fluid overload in his
lungs, so the internal medicine group that handled his care at Vineland ordered, among
other things, a cardiology consultation that was performed by Dr. Andrew Zinn. Id. Four
days after his admission to the hospital, Mendoza suffered a respiratory and cardiac
arrest, leading to a permanent anoxic brain injury. Less than a year later, Mendoza died
from acute respiratory failure as a result of cardiac arrest and coronary artery disease.
As relevant to this appeal, Mendoza’s wife Gladys, in her capacity as personal
representative of his estate, sued Inspira Health Network (Inspira), Dr. Zinn, and The
Heart House, alleging medical negligence. She based this claim on a note in her
husband’s discharge summary stating he had difficulty receiving dialysis while at
Vineland because of the ICU’s staffing limitations. After discovery, Plaintiff failed to
adduce evidence sufficient to show Inspira had any responsibility to staff the dialysis
unit, or that Dr. Zinn or The Heart House breached their standard of care. So the District
Court granted those three Defendants summary judgment. See Mendoza v. Inspira
Medical Center Vineland,
2019 WL 5304129, at *11 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2019). This appeal
followed.1
Our careful review of the record and the various opinions leads us to conclude that
we could scarcely improve on the work of the learned trial judge. As a procedural matter,
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291and exercise de novo review. See Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc.,
909 F.3d 604, 609(3d Cir. 2018).
2 the District Court addressed the issues methodically and gave Plaintiff opportunities to
amend her complaint and hone her arguments. And substantively, we perceive no factual
or legal error in the Court’s conclusions that: (1) an affidavit of merit was required
against Inspira; (2) Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that Inspira had any responsibilities
relating to the staffing of the dialysis unit; and (3) Plaintiff failed to marshal evidence
sufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Zinn or The Heart House violated their standard of care.
Accordingly, we will affirm for substantially the same reasons explained by the District
Court.
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished