×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Concubine and Children Cannot Sue for Wrongful Death of Federal Prisoner
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a concubine and her children could not sue for damages resulting from the cancer death of federal prisoner Jose Miguel Ruiz.
This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, against the United States in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. First, the District Court held Luz Gonzelez lacked standing to sue for any wrongs inflicted on Ruiz, or for any emotional distress she may have suffered as a result thereof. Gonzelez contended she could bring the claims because she was either Ruiz's common-law wife or his concubine more uxorio" under Puerto Rican law.
In affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit held that because the alleged wrongful acts occurred in Florida, Florida law including Florida choice of law rules governs the action. Florida law directed the court to consider Puerto Rican law to see whether Gonzelez qualifies as Ruiz's common law spouse. Rather than examine that law, the court affirmed because Gonzelez has provided us with no authority, however, to suggest that Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriage. Moreover, while she may have held concubine more uxorio status, she has provided us with no authority demonstrating that concubines have the right under Puerto Rico law to sue for wrongful death.
The Eleventh Circuit then turned to the claims of Gonzelez's children. Because the children failed to brief or argue the district court's dismissal of their claim for loss of associational benefits," the court deemed that point waived.
The district court held the conduct that Gonzelez's children brought suit was, as a matter of law, insufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." That court said, Plaintiff's factual allegations establish, at most, a series of BOP deceptions regarding Mr. Ruiz's terminal medical condition, the BOP deceptions regarding Mr. Ruiz's family with reasonable access to Mr. Ruiz during his illness, the BOP's failure to inform plaintiff's of Mr. Ruiz's death, the BOP's death, the BOP's conduct in exposing plaintiff's to Mr. Ruiz's pain and suffering due to substandard medical care, and the BOP's delay in transporting Mr. Ruiz's remains. None of the conduct can be characterized as atrocious' or utterly intolerable to a civilized community.'" See: Gonzelez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 231 F. Supp.2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A sad but accurate commentary on the reality of prison medical care.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed that while substandard medical care is regrettable and not to be tolerated even in a federal correctional facility the rendering of substandard medical care does not constitute the intentional infliction of emotional distress." Additionally, mere deception, while unfortunate, does not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress." Florida law requires physical injury as a result of the emotional trauma," to state such a claim. The children failed to allege sufficient physical injury. Based upon the above, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal order. See: Gonzelez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 378 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2004).
This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, against the United States in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. First, the District Court held Luz Gonzelez lacked standing to sue for any wrongs inflicted on Ruiz, or for any emotional distress she may have suffered as a result thereof. Gonzelez contended she could bring the claims because she was either Ruiz's common-law wife or his concubine more uxorio" under Puerto Rican law.
In affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit held that because the alleged wrongful acts occurred in Florida, Florida law including Florida choice of law rules governs the action. Florida law directed the court to consider Puerto Rican law to see whether Gonzelez qualifies as Ruiz's common law spouse. Rather than examine that law, the court affirmed because Gonzelez has provided us with no authority, however, to suggest that Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriage. Moreover, while she may have held concubine more uxorio status, she has provided us with no authority demonstrating that concubines have the right under Puerto Rico law to sue for wrongful death.
The Eleventh Circuit then turned to the claims of Gonzelez's children. Because the children failed to brief or argue the district court's dismissal of their claim for loss of associational benefits," the court deemed that point waived.
The district court held the conduct that Gonzelez's children brought suit was, as a matter of law, insufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." That court said, Plaintiff's factual allegations establish, at most, a series of BOP deceptions regarding Mr. Ruiz's terminal medical condition, the BOP deceptions regarding Mr. Ruiz's family with reasonable access to Mr. Ruiz during his illness, the BOP's failure to inform plaintiff's of Mr. Ruiz's death, the BOP's death, the BOP's conduct in exposing plaintiff's to Mr. Ruiz's pain and suffering due to substandard medical care, and the BOP's delay in transporting Mr. Ruiz's remains. None of the conduct can be characterized as atrocious' or utterly intolerable to a civilized community.'" See: Gonzelez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 231 F. Supp.2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A sad but accurate commentary on the reality of prison medical care.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed that while substandard medical care is regrettable and not to be tolerated even in a federal correctional facility the rendering of substandard medical care does not constitute the intentional infliction of emotional distress." Additionally, mere deception, while unfortunate, does not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress." Florida law requires physical injury as a result of the emotional trauma," to state such a claim. The children failed to allege sufficient physical injury. Based upon the above, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal order. See: Gonzelez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 378 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gonzelez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 231 F. Supp.2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2002) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
LUZ M. GONZALEZ-JIMENEZ DE RUIZ, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children, LUIS FERNANDO RUIZ GONZALEZ, JOSE DAVID RUIZ GONZALEZ, MELANIE RUIZ GONZALEZ, and ARAIKA RUIZ GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, -vs-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
Case No. 5:00-cv-371-Oc-10GRJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, OCALA DIVISION
231 F. Supp. 2d 1187; 2002 U.S. Dist.
November 14, 2002, Decided
November 14, 2002, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed by Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15556 (11th Cir. Fla., July 28, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22857 (M.D. Fla., 2002)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge OVERRULED; Report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge adopted; Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" GRANTED.
COUNSEL: For LUZ M. GONZALEZ JIMINEZ DE RUIZ, plaintiff: Maria H. Sandoval, Law Office of Maria H. Sandoval, San Juan, PR.
For USA, defendant: Reginald Luster, Ralph J. Lee, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jacksonville, FL USA.
JUDGES: Wm. Terrell Hodges, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINIONBY: Wm. Terrell Hodges
OPINION:
[*1189] ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued a report (Doc. 47) recommending that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32), be granted.
The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54). Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert the following objections:
(1) that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as it [*1190] recognizes a concubine's right to share in jointly-owned property;
(2) that the Plaintiffs [**2] have a right to sue for "loss of associational benefits" (Doc. 50);
(3) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Defendant's conduct was "less than outrageous" and thus insufficient to give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and,
(4) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Plaintiffs' diabetes and/ or emotionally triggered asthma do not constitute a "physical impact," which is necessary to give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Florida law.
First, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine relationship for purposes of property distribution, the Plaintiffs' objection is due to be overruled. As correctly cited in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize common law marriages. n1
n1 U.S. v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 678 F. Supp. 353, 356 n.4 (D. Puerto Rico 1988). See also Delgado v. Bowen, 651 F. Supp. 1320, 1321 (D. Puerto Rico 1987) (stating that "the laws of Puerto Rico do not recognize common-law marriages," and citing, Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. sec. 221). In Delgado, the Court also stated that although the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine's right to a share of jointly-owned property, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize a concubine as a "spouse" for the purposes of the distribution of intestate personal property. Id. at 1321, 1322.
[**3]
Second, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that they have a "right to sue for the loss of associational benefits," the objection is due to be overruled. The Plaintiffs have failed to cite any controlling authority to support their objection, and Florida law provides that upon the death of the spouse or parent, a cause of action for loss of consortium is abated. n2
n2 ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492, 494 (3d DCA 1997). A spouse or child may recover for loss of support and services pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, but in this action, the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims under the Wrongful Death Act.
Third, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that the Defendant's conduct was "outrageous," the objection is due to be overruled. Whether conduct is deemed "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency," is determined by the Court as a matter of law. n3
n3 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 279 (Fla. 1985).
[**4]
And fourth, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that diabetes and emotionally triggered asthma constitute a "physical impact" because "modern day psychiatry recognizes that changes in body chemistry parallel changes in the mind," the objection is due to be overruled. Florida law is clear that "intangible, mental injuries are insufficient to meet the physical injury requirement." n4
n4 R.J. & P.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So. 2d 360, 364 (Fla. 1995).
The Defendant has filed "limited objections" to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 53). Because the Defendant's objections do not affect the substance of the report and recommendation, the Defendant's objections are due to be overruled.
The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff "Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez" is also referred to in the record as "Luis Fernando Caballero Gonzalez." And, the Court also notes that although the report and recommendation states that hospital officials informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales [*1191] that [**5] Mr. Ruiz's spine and neck were broken by prison personnel, the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects that it was Mr. Ruiz who informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales of his injuries, and that it was Mr. Ruiz's personal conclusion that prison personnel had acted crudely.
Upon due consideration of the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's objections, and upon an independent examination of the file, it is ordered that:
(1) the Plaintiffs' objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54) are OVERRULED;
(2) the Defendant's objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 53) are OVERRULED;
(3) the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47) is adopted; confirmed, and made a part hereof;
(4) the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;
(5) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs; and,
(6) the Clerk is further directed to terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 14th day of November, 2002.
Wm. Terrell Hodges
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 5:00-cv-371-Oc-10GRJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, OCALA DIVISION
231 F. Supp. 2d 1187; 2002 U.S. Dist.
November 14, 2002, Decided
November 14, 2002, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed by Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15556 (11th Cir. Fla., July 28, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22857 (M.D. Fla., 2002)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge OVERRULED; Report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge adopted; Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" GRANTED.
COUNSEL: For LUZ M. GONZALEZ JIMINEZ DE RUIZ, plaintiff: Maria H. Sandoval, Law Office of Maria H. Sandoval, San Juan, PR.
For USA, defendant: Reginald Luster, Ralph J. Lee, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jacksonville, FL USA.
JUDGES: Wm. Terrell Hodges, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINIONBY: Wm. Terrell Hodges
OPINION:
[*1189] ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued a report (Doc. 47) recommending that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32), be granted.
The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54). Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert the following objections:
(1) that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as it [*1190] recognizes a concubine's right to share in jointly-owned property;
(2) that the Plaintiffs [**2] have a right to sue for "loss of associational benefits" (Doc. 50);
(3) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Defendant's conduct was "less than outrageous" and thus insufficient to give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and,
(4) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Plaintiffs' diabetes and/ or emotionally triggered asthma do not constitute a "physical impact," which is necessary to give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Florida law.
First, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine relationship for purposes of property distribution, the Plaintiffs' objection is due to be overruled. As correctly cited in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize common law marriages. n1
n1 U.S. v. Panzardi-Alvarez, 678 F. Supp. 353, 356 n.4 (D. Puerto Rico 1988). See also Delgado v. Bowen, 651 F. Supp. 1320, 1321 (D. Puerto Rico 1987) (stating that "the laws of Puerto Rico do not recognize common-law marriages," and citing, Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. sec. 221). In Delgado, the Court also stated that although the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine's right to a share of jointly-owned property, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize a concubine as a "spouse" for the purposes of the distribution of intestate personal property. Id. at 1321, 1322.
[**3]
Second, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that they have a "right to sue for the loss of associational benefits," the objection is due to be overruled. The Plaintiffs have failed to cite any controlling authority to support their objection, and Florida law provides that upon the death of the spouse or parent, a cause of action for loss of consortium is abated. n2
n2 ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492, 494 (3d DCA 1997). A spouse or child may recover for loss of support and services pursuant to Florida's Wrongful Death Act, but in this action, the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims under the Wrongful Death Act.
Third, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that the Defendant's conduct was "outrageous," the objection is due to be overruled. Whether conduct is deemed "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency," is determined by the Court as a matter of law. n3
n3 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 279 (Fla. 1985).
[**4]
And fourth, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that diabetes and emotionally triggered asthma constitute a "physical impact" because "modern day psychiatry recognizes that changes in body chemistry parallel changes in the mind," the objection is due to be overruled. Florida law is clear that "intangible, mental injuries are insufficient to meet the physical injury requirement." n4
n4 R.J. & P.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So. 2d 360, 364 (Fla. 1995).
The Defendant has filed "limited objections" to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 53). Because the Defendant's objections do not affect the substance of the report and recommendation, the Defendant's objections are due to be overruled.
The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff "Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez" is also referred to in the record as "Luis Fernando Caballero Gonzalez." And, the Court also notes that although the report and recommendation states that hospital officials informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales [*1191] that [**5] Mr. Ruiz's spine and neck were broken by prison personnel, the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects that it was Mr. Ruiz who informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales of his injuries, and that it was Mr. Ruiz's personal conclusion that prison personnel had acted crudely.
Upon due consideration of the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's objections, and upon an independent examination of the file, it is ordered that:
(1) the Plaintiffs' objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54) are OVERRULED;
(2) the Defendant's objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 53) are OVERRULED;
(3) the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47) is adopted; confirmed, and made a part hereof;
(4) the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;
(5) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs; and,
(6) the Clerk is further directed to terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 14th day of November, 2002.
Wm. Terrell Hodges
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE