Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Lama v. Borras

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
16 F.3d 473 (1st Cir. 1994)


Facts

In 1985 in Puerto Rico, Roberto Romero Lama (Romero) (plaintiff) was suffering from severe back pain. He was referred to Dr. Pedro Borras (Borras) (defendant) at the Asociacion Hospital del Maestro, Inc. (hospital) (defendant). Borras believed Romero had a herniated disc and scheduled a surgery. Before the surgery, Borras did not prescribe bed rest or any other form of “conservative treatment.”After the operation, Romero’s symptoms returned a few days later. Borras ordered a second operation. In doing so, he did not order pre- or post-operative antibiotics. After the second operation, Romero’s bandages were described by nurses as “very bloody.” He also experienced localized pain at the incision; both signs of possible infection. A few days later, a nurse charted that Romero’s bandages were “soiled again.” These were the only records entered by nurses about Romero’s condition due to the hospital’s system of charting. Romero developed discitis—an infection of the space between discs—and experienced extreme pain. He was diagnosed by an attending physician and given antibiotics. However, he spent additional months in the hospital in recovery. Once recovered, Romero and his wife moved from Puerto Rico to Florida and brought a diversity tort action against Borras and the hospital on several grounds of negligence. The district court found Borras negligent in his failure to provide proper conservative medical treatment, his premature and otherwise improper discharge of Romero after surgery, his negligent performance of surgery, and his failure to provide proper management for Romero’s infection. The district court found the hospital liable for negligence for improper charting and mishandling of bandages and wound dressings. The jury awarded Romero $600,000 in damages. The hospital and Borras appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Stahl, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 201,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.