USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX JACYLN O GARRO, PLAINTIFF, SX 19 CV 112 V ACTION FOR DAMAGES Jury Trial Demanded DR GASNEL E BRYAN DR RON ANDERS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Cite as 2021 VI SUPER 55U HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITY CORPORATION DEFENDANTS Appearances Lee J Rohn, Esq I 108 King Street Suite 3 56 King Street Third Floor Christiansted St Croix WW For Plamnfl Denise N George, Esq Assistant Attorney General #213 Estate La Reine Kingshill V100850 For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION ‘1] WILLOCKS Presiding Judge tIII THIS MATTER is before the Court on Jaclyn O Garro s (hereinafter Plaintiff ) Motion to Compel Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation (hereinafter Defendant ) to Supplement Discovery Responses filed on April 28 2020 Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on May 7 2020 For the reasons stated herein the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant t0 Supplement Responses Nos 9 ll 19 and 23 and DENY Nos 5 6 8 12 and 18 Further Nos 20 22 will be DENIED unless the Defendant with reasonable efforts, can locate the information Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan, Dr Ron Anders and the Virgm Islands Hospitals and Health Facdzty Corporatzon SX 19 CV [12 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55H I Discussion i Meet and Confer Requirement VI R Civ P 37 l 112 If a party served fails to make all necessary disclosures as required by V I R Civ P 33, the party requesting disclosure may move to compel discovery under V I R Civ P 37(a)( l) ' The Motion must satisfy certain requirements, Specifically, the motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action ’ V I R Civ P 37(a)(l) 3 The certification must demonstrate in writing that prior to filing, counsel for the parties attempted to meet and confer in good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for the motion to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible V I R Civ P 37 [(3) ‘ AWWWmeQ— Compel p 15) Plaintiff wrote to Defendant with information about its discovery responses (See Exhibit 1) At the end of the e mail, Plaintiff wrote that a meet and confer could be held regarding the discovery issues (See Exhibit l p l3) A meet and confer was held on March 17, 2020 at l I 00 a m and Defendant agreed to supplement some of its responses but not all (See Exhibit 2) The Court finds this sufficient pursuant to LRCi 37 l ii Motion to Compel Legal Standard 114 For discovery to progress effectively each party must provide truthful, complete candid and explicit responses to each individual discovery request M Regarding interrogatories the responding party must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing unless the responding party ; Crtu, v Vzrgm Islands Water & Power Am}! 2020 V l LEXIS 45 (Super Ct 2020) 15:? Id ‘ Id (citing Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS 66 at IO 20l9 VI SUPER 66U SI 18 at 3) Jaclvn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Factltty Corporanon SX 19 CV 112 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU demonstrates that he cannot do so with the exercise of reasonable efforts 6 See V I R Civ P 33 advisory committee 5 note to subpart (b) 7 Only when the responding party has made this representation can he state that the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining other documents 3 See V I R Civ P 33 advisory committee’s note to subpart (d) Otherwise, answering an interrogatory by merely “referring to pleadings or other discovery is insufficient ” 96 A L R 2D 598 (1964) (collecting cases) 9 Interrogatory No 5 Interrogatory No 5 Identify by date and parties involved any and all communications/consultations regarding the removal of Plaintiffs left and/or right ovary in September 2018, among any of the Defendant’s employees contractors associates and others including the nature/substance of such communication and/or consultation, the reason for same, the results of the same and all actions taken by Defendant any Co Defendant and/or by Plaintiff in response to such communication and/or consultation Response to Interrogatory No 5 All communications regarding plaintiff’s care while at the hospital are contained in the medical records previously produced lnterrogatory No 6 lnterrogatory No 6 Describe all verbal and/or written instructions and communications of any type whatsoever regarding the removal of her left and/or right ovary provided to Plaintiff by and of Defendant 5 employees, contractors associates or and Co Defendant in September 20l8 Response to lnterrogatory No 6 See response to No S ‘115 Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure “an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b) [generally that it is relevant and discoverable] ” V IR Civ P 33(a)(2) Each interrogatory must be answered fully and any grounds for objection must be stated or it may be waived V I R Civ P 33(b)(3) (4) 6 Id 7 Id 3 Id ‘ Id Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game] E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Faahtv Corporation SX 19 CV 112 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU ?I6 Regarding interrogatories, the responding party must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing ” unless the responding party demonstrates that he cannot do so ‘with the exercise of reasonable efforts ” Cru~ v Vlrgm Islands Water and Power Authorttv 2020 LEXIS VI 45 (Super Ct 2020) See also VI R Civ P 33 advisory committees note to subpart (b) Only when the responding party has made this representation can he state that the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining other documents See V I R Civ P 33 advisory committee 5 note to subpart (d) ‘|[7 Defendant alleges that Nos 5 and Nos 6 should not be supplemented because this information is contained in the medical records which are detailed and self explanatory (See Defendant s Opp p 4) In addition Defendant meets their burden because they represented that it would be unreasonable WWW rule Defendant only needs to state why doing 90 cannot be done even with the exercise of reasonable efforts The Court finds a detailed minute by minute recording to be sufficient to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and that it would be unreasonable to have Defendant simply narrate what is already highly detailed Thus the Court will DENY supplementation for interrogatories No 5 and No 6 lnterrogatory No 8 Interrogatory N0 8 Describe in detail any and all diagnoses made by any of Defendant 5 employees and/or Co Defendant Dr Gasnel E Bryan and/or Co Defendant Dr Ron Anders including but not limited to any and all medical practitioners, physicians and/or surgeons concerning Plaintiff, at any time in September 20l8 describe any and all treatment/care plans/recommendations made and identify all persons who participated in same and identify all criteria/tests relied upon in making said diagnoses and treatment plans Response to [nterrogatory No 8 Plaintiffs pre operative diagnoses were (1) progressive pelvic pain and (2) pelvic mass Plaintiffs post operative diagnoses are (1) Right tubo ovarian complex (2) hemorrhagic cyst of right ovary (3) extensive pelvic adhesions Interrogatory No 12  Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Camel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Fac iliry Corporation 8X 19 CV 112 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U Page 5 0f 10 Interrogatory No 12 State in complete detail all complaints concerns and/or any statements whatsoever made by Plaintiff to Defendant 3 employees and/or to any Co Defendant in this matter and/or to any health practitioner physician and/or surgeon concerning the treatment of Plaintiff, identify each person to whom the same were made and give a factual summary of the course of action treatment, andlor care provided to her as a result, together with applicable dates Response to Interrogatory No 12 None that we are aware of except this lawsuit ‘l[8 This Court has held when a response is blatantly insufficient it will be ordered to be supplemented See Kralzk v Osage SIX Holdings LLC 2020 VI SUPER 69 (Super Ct 2020) (holding responses were blatantly insufficient» The Court does not find Plaintiff’s reasoning for compelling supplementation on No 8 or No 12 to be instructive here because the Defendant does not need to show that information would be unreasonable Defendant simply answered the interrogatory Thus, the Court will DENY supplementation on No 8 and No 12 —_W Interrogatory No 9 Identify any and all lawsuits claims and complaints alleging negligence or malpractice in connection with failing to remove the correct organ/body part and/or removing the incorrect organ/body part at the Juan Luis Hospital during the past 5 years and as to each state the names of the parties the court and docket number where filed the nature of the allegations, and the ultimate disposition or status of the matter Response to Interrogatory No 9 Objection Overbroad and irrelevant ‘l[9 Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b) [generally that it is relevant and discoverable] ’ V IR Civ P 33(a)(2) Each interrogatory must be answered fully and any grounds for objection must be stated or it may be waived V I R Civ P 33(b)(3) (4) The Court determines whether information is relevant by the standard provided by Virgin Islands Rule of Evidence 401 See Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS 66 at 5 6 2019 VI SUPER 66U ‘][l l at 2 Under this rule relevant information is that which has the tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without [it] Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS 66 at *6 2019 VI SUPER 66U t1|12 at *2 See also Thomas v People ofthe VI 60 V I 183 196 (V I 2013)  Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game] E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Vtrgm Islands Hospitals and Health Faetltty Corporation SX 19 CV 1 12 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU ‘IIIO The Court finds this interrogatory relevant because the fact that medical malpractice in the form of negligent removal of a body part within Juan Luis Hospital has happened before may make it more likely it has happened again At this point in the discovery process this information should be available to the Plaintiff, however it does not have to mean this information would be admissible in evidence '0 Thus the will GRANT supplementation on Interrogatory No 9 Interrogatory No 10 Interrogatory No 10 State whether the Defendant’s business and/or operator’s license to practice has ever been limited, restricted denied, revoked, or suspended and/or compromised, and if so state the applicable dates each reason for same, the current status of such business and/or operator’s license, and the identity of the person, committee board or other such entity initiating each and every such action against the business and/or operator’s license Interrogatory No 10 Objection irrelevant —_1nmaammn. Interrogatory No 11 State whether the Defendant’s accreditation has ever been limited, delayed restricted denied, taken away revoked reduced or suspended and/or compromised and if so, state the applicable dates each reason for same the identity of the person, committee board or entity initiating each and every such action relating to accreditation and the current status of each such accreditation action Response to lnterrogatory No 11 Objection irrelevant 1111 Again this is relevant to the claim of medical malpractice and the answer has a tendency to make the fact Juan Luis Hospital was negligent more likely Defendant makes the argument that because accreditation is peer review” it is not discoverable but fails to cite to any law or policy that would persuade this Court May the Court set this as a reminder to Defendant and other litigants during the discovery process that the Court will not make arguments for them Therefore and pursuant to the '” lnfonnation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable Dallaslorg v Walker No ST 17 CV 393 20l9Vl LEXIS 66 20|9 VI SUPER 96U fill at2 (VI Super Ct July ll 20l9) Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facdlty Corporation SX 19 CV 112 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U Page 7 0f 10 Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence 401 the Court will GRANT supplementation on Interrogatory No Il Interrogatory No 18 Interrogatory No 18 Please identify and describe with particularity any and all acts and/or omissions on the part of Plaintiff that Defendant contends caused and/or contributed in any manner to the failure of Defendants to properly recognize and address Plaintiffs concerns as set forth in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint identify all persons who will testify to this effect and identify all documents test results and/or medical literature relied upon in support of any and/or all of these contentions/facts Response to lnterrogatory No 18 Defendants did not fail to recognize and address Plaintiff 8 concerns All caretakers will testify to that Interrogatory No 19 lnterrogatory No 19 If Defendant contends that the treatment of Plaintiff by Co Defendants in September 2018 met or exceeded the appliable medical standard of care, please identify this two (2) persons who will testify to these facts and identify all documents test results, and medical literature relied upon in support of any and/or all of these contention/facts Response to Interrogatory No 19 The applicable standard of care is contained in the AGOG guidelines on ovarian cysts (l[12 In the absence of a demonstrated need for the specific information sought, a request can be overbroad and unduly burdensome Sheeslev 2018 V I LEXIS 42 (Super Ct 2018) With regard to Interrogatory No 18 this Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently answered the Interrogatory and the Court will not compel a party to answer in an opposite way Supplementation of an interrogatory should not be used for any other purpose than to require an answer when there is an insufficient response Therefore the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s request on No 18 ([[13 This Court has held when a response is blatantly insufficient it will be ordered to be supplemented See Kraltk v Osage SIX Holdings LLC 2020 VI SUPER 69 (Super Ct 2020) (holding responses were blatantly insufficient» The Court finds this to be the case here Defendant 5 response is insufficient because it does not even describe what the AGOG is and it does not answer the  Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Fatality Corporation SX 19 CV l 12 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU statement and the Court finds this relevant to Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim The Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to compel 0n Interrogatory No 19 lnterrogatory No 20 Interrogatory No 20 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees that were convened to review/investigate in any manner the claims made by Plaintiff concerning Defendant, identify all persons who sat as members on this committee identify any and all reports prepared by this committee, and describe in detail any and all findings and/or conclusions reached by this committee and if no Medical Malpractice Review Committee was so convened state all reasons why this was not done Response to Interrogatory No 20 I do not have any information on the actions of the MMARC Interrogatory No 21 lnterrogatory No 21 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees that were convened to review/investigate in any manner that claims made by Plaintiff concerning Co Mam identify any and all reports prepared by this committee and describe in detail any and all findings and/or conclusions reached by this committee, and if no Medical Malpractice Review Committee was so convened state all reasons why this was not done Response to Interrogatory N0 21 I do not have any information on the actions of the MMARC Interrogatory No 22 lnterrogatory No 22 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees that were convened to review/investigate in any manner the claims made by Plaintiff concerning Co Defendant Dr Ron Anders identify all persons who sat as members on this committee, identify any and all reports prepared by this committee and describe in detail any and all findings and/or conclusions reached by this committee and if no Medical Malpractice Review Committee was so convened state all reasons why this was not done Response to Interrogatory No 22 I do not have any information on the actions of the MMARC ‘l[l4 Plaintiff basically contends that the Medical Malpractice Action Review Committee (hereinafter ‘MMARC ’) does not even exist (See Plaintiff’s Reply p 2) Plaintiff also claims that if the MMARC does exist that it is not confidential (See Plaintiff 3 Reply p 2 3) Plaintiff is correct in Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospttals and Health Faetltty Corporation SX 19 CV ll2 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U arguing that the information and decisions by the MMARC are intended to be open to the claimant and shared with the claimant See V 1 Code Title 27 §l66i (a) However if the Defendant claims they have no information the Court cannot compel Defendant to provide something they do not have The Court finds that Defendant did not specify that they could not with reasonable efforts obtain that information (Ills Therefore the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on Nos 20 22 only to the extent that Defendant cannot reasonably obtain the MMARC information If Defendant obtains any information or has in their possession information that would answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories than it should be submitted to Plaintiff and filed as a Notice to the Court within fourteen (14) days of date of entry of this Order If Defendant does not find any information after reasonable efforts, file a Notice WWWWWW— Interrogatory No 23 Interrogatory No 23 Please identify any and all insurance funds established by the Government of the Virgin Islands for medical malpractice claims the date that said funds were established identify any and all reports made by Defendant and/or the Government of the Virgin Islands to any representative of the funds and state the date and content of each such report Response to Interrogatory No 23 The fund established to pay malpractice claims is governed by statute 19 V I C l66e ‘1116 This response is blatantly insufficient The Defendant gives no explanation as to why they answered in this way because it does not reasonably answer Interrogatory No 23 nor does it explain why Defendant could not do so with reasonable efforts Thus the Court will GRANT supplementation on Interrogatory No 23 Jaclyn 0 Garro ‘ Dr Game! E Bryan, Dr Ron Anders and the Vargm Islands Hospitals and Health Fm 1111‘)! Corporanon SX 19 CV 1 l2 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU 11 CONCLUSION Thus the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Responses Nos 9 l 1 l9 and 23 and DENY Nos 5 6 8 12 and 18 Nos 20 22 will be DENIED unless the Defendant, with reasonable efforts, can locate information It is hereby % DONE and so ORDERED this 9&7 day of% 2021 HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court ATTES'I Tamara Charles, Clerk of Court gate m Supervisor WfldZ-E  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX JACLYN 0’ GARRO, PLAINTIFF, SX 19 CV 00112 v ACTION FOR DAMAGES Jury Trial Demanded Cite as 2021 VI Super 55U DR GASNEL E BRYAN DR RON ANDERS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITY CORPORATION DEFENDANT ORDER AND NOW consistent with this Court 5 Memorandum Opinion entered in the above captioned matter on even date, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 5 is DENIED it is further ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory N0 6 is DENIED it is further ORDERED Plaintiff 5 Motion to Supplement [nterrogatory No 8 is DENIED it is further ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 12 is DENIED it is further ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 18 is DENIED it is further ORDERED Interrogatory N0 9 shall be supplemented it is further ORDERED Interrogatory No 11 shall be supplemented it is funher ORDERED Interrogatory No 19 shall be supplemented it is further ORDERED Interrogatory No 23 shall be suppiemented it is further Jaclyn 0 Garro 1 Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facility Corporation SX 19 CV 112 Order ORDERED Interrogatory Nos 20 22 are DENIED only to the extent that Defendant cannot reasonably obtain the MMARC information If Defendant obtains any information or has in their possession information that would answer Plaintiff s Interrogatories than it should be submitted to Plaintiff and by Notice to the Court within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Order [f Defendant does not find any information after reasonable efforts they should Motion to the Plaintiff and file a Notice with the Court that no information was found within the fourteen (14) day timeframe It is hereby DONE and so ORDERED this 9e“day of 140% 2021 O / / ( Am HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of Court épervisor Wm f ”6 fi/Agéfiz/ Date