NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 19-3434

_____________

GLADYS MENDOZA, 

Personal Representative of Elias Mendoza,

 Appellant

v.

INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTER VINELAND; SOUTH JERSEY HEALTH CARE; 

INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; ANDREW ZINN, MD; THE HEART HOUSE; 

NAEEM M. AMIN, M.D.; KIDNEY AND HYPERTENSION SPECIALISTS, P.A.

__________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 1-16-cv-01337)

District Judge: The Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 27, 2020

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: June 2, 2020) 

_____________________

OPINION*

_____________________ 

 

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

In 2014, Elias Mendoza was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit at Inspira Medical 

Center Vineland (Vineland) with shortness of breath. Mendoza had fluid overload in his 

lungs, so the internal medicine group that handled his care at Vineland ordered, among 

other things, a cardiology consultation that was performed by Dr. Andrew Zinn. Id. Four 

days after his admission to the hospital, Mendoza suffered a respiratory and cardiac 

arrest, leading to a permanent anoxic brain injury. Less than a year later, Mendoza died

from acute respiratory failure as a result of cardiac arrest and coronary artery disease. 

As relevant to this appeal, Mendoza’s wife Gladys, in her capacity as personal 

representative of his estate, sued Inspira Health Network (Inspira), Dr. Zinn, and The 

Heart House, alleging medical negligence. She based this claim on a note in her 

husband’s discharge summary stating he had difficulty receiving dialysis while at 

Vineland because of the ICU’s staffing limitations. After discovery, Plaintiff failed to 

adduce evidence sufficient to show Inspira had any responsibility to staff the dialysis 

unit, or that Dr. Zinn or The Heart House breached their standard of care. So the District 

Court granted those three Defendants summary judgment. See Mendoza v. Inspira 

Medical Center Vineland, 2019 WL 5304129, at *11 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2019). This appeal 

followed.

1

Our careful review of the record and the various opinions leads us to conclude that 

we could scarcely improve on the work of the learned trial judge. As a procedural matter, 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo review. See Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 

909 F.3d 604, 609 (3d Cir. 2018).
3

the District Court addressed the issues methodically and gave Plaintiff opportunities to 

amend her complaint and hone her arguments. And substantively, we perceive no factual 

or legal error in the Court’s conclusions that: (1) an affidavit of merit was required 

against Inspira; (2) Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that Inspira had any responsibilities 

relating to the staffing of the dialysis unit; and (3) Plaintiff failed to marshal evidence 

sufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Zinn or The Heart House violated their standard of care.

Accordingly, we will affirm for substantially the same reasons explained by the District 

Court.