Negligence – Puerto Rico law – Medical malpractice

Listen to this article

Where summary judgment was awarded to a defendant physician based on the lower court’s finding that the claims against him were untimely under Puerto Rico law, the judgment should be affirmed despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the burden to prove timeliness never shifted to them.

“In October 2016, Neyza Cruz-Cedeño and Savier Vázquez-Oyola sought medical treatment for their infant son, who was suffering from convulsions and seizures. After being treated at three medical centers on the same day, their son suffered cardiac arrest and, tragically, passed away.

“After filing an initial complaint in Commonwealth court, the parents ultimately sued the medical centers and doctors in federal court. Dr. Fernando Vega-Moral (‘Dr. Vega’), one of the doctors who treated their son, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parents’ claims against him were filed too late. The district court granted his motion, concluding that Dr. Vega had properly raised a statute of limitations defense and the parents had failed to meet their burden of proving that their federal claims against him were timely. It then denied the parents’ motion for reconsideration on the ground that they relied on new arguments that they should have presented much earlier in the case. We agree with the district court’s analysis and thus affirm. …

“The parents argue that the district court was wrong to grant summary judgment to Dr. Vega on statute of limitations grounds and to deny their motion for reconsideration of that ruling. On appeal, however, the parents do not contend that they met their burden to establish that their federal complaint against Dr. Vega was timely. Instead, they claim that the burden of proof to establish timeliness never shifted to them at all, and that, even if it did, the district court should have reconsidered its summary judgment ruling after reviewing their Commonwealth complaint. …

“The parents raise two arguments as to why the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Vega on statute of limitations grounds. Both of their arguments depend on the premise that the burden to prove timeliness never shifted to them, contrary to the district court’s holding. First, the parents contend that Dr. Vega waived his statute of limitations affirmative defense by not raising it in his answer. Second, and alternatively, they maintain that Dr. Vega did not properly support his summary judgment motion.

“… As we explain, our analysis of these two legal issues reveals no basis for disturbing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Dr. Vega.”

Cruz-Cedeño, et al. v. Vega-Moral, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-167-25) (21 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 23-1609) (Aug. 8, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.