No. 23-1929

NORENE RODRÍGUEZ and IRIS AIDA RODRÍGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF SAN JUAN, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Camille L. Vélez-Rivé, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Barron, Chief Judge, Selya and Aframe, Circuit Judges.

David Efron and Law Offices David Efron, PC on brief for appellants. Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts and O'Neill & Borges LLC on brief for appellee Encompass Health. Jorge J. López López, López & Nevares, LLP, and Eugene F. Hestres Vélez on brief for appellee Báez.

January 23, 2025 SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal runs aground on the bedrock principle that a party opposing summary judgment must adduce specific evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Tropigas de P.R., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 637 F.3d 53, 56-59 (1st Cir. 2011); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4-5, 7-10 (1st Cir. 2010). The plaintiffs — Norene Rodríguez and Iris Aida Rodríguez Rodríguez, sisters who are appellants here — challenge the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, Inc. (Encompass) and Dr. José Báez Córdova (Dr. Báez). The plaintiffs had sued the defendants for medical malpractice in connection with the treatment of their now-deceased mother, Gloria Rodríguez González. They alleged that the defendants were negligent in caring for their mother as she struggled to recover from a severe bout of the COVID-19 virus. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' claims, concluding that they had not demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Rodríguez v. Encompass Health Rehab. Hosp. of San Juan, Inc., No. 21-1609, 2023 WL 6976566, at *7-8 (D.P.R. Oct. 23, 2023). After careful consideration, we affirm.

- 2 - I

Consistent with the summary judgment standard, see Torres Vargas v. Santiago Cummings, 149 F.3d 29, 30 (1st Cir. 1998), we rehearse the relevant facts in the light most agreeable to the plaintiffs. In the process, we exclude facts that the district court appropriately excluded pursuant to its local "anti- ferret" rule.1 See D.P.R. Civ. R. 56(e); see also Rodríguez- Severino v. UTC Aerospace Sys., 52 F.4th 448, 453 (1st Cir. 2022).

A

The decedent was admitted to Encompass on October 6, 2020 for physical rehabilitation after contracting COVID-19. Dr. Báez was her attending physician.

The decedent's course of treatment was carried out under Dr. Báez's supervision. Dr. Báez was not an employee of Encompass but, rather, was at all relevant times an Assistant Professor at the University of Puerto Rico's School of Medicine (UPR). He was credentialled as a specialist in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation and had admitting privileges at Encompass.

Encompass is not a facility owned or operated by UPR. Instead, it is an independent hospital, privately owned and

1 The rule authorizes the district court to disregard proposed statements of fact that are not supported by specific citations to record material. It is intended "to relieve the district court of any responsibility to ferret through the record to discern whether any material fact is g