[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 21

- 12966
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
ADRIANO JIMENEZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marisela Fernandez,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, d.b.a. Miami VA Healthcare System,

Defendant

- Appellee. USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 1 of 72 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12966

___________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20

- cv

- 21368

- BB

____________________ Before W ILSON , N EWSOM , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: The facts of this case are very tragic. Adrian o Jimenez ’s wife passed away while receiving treat ment at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Miami. Jimenez filed suit against the United States for negligently causing his wife’s death. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States. After careful review, w e affirm

. While recognizing the tragic nature ofthis case, we agree with the district court that there was no evidence on which a jury could determine that the hospital staff breached the relevant standard of care.
I Jimenez’s wife
, Marisela Fernandez
, suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

— otherwise known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. In 2017, she was admitted to the VA Medical Center in Miami with an acute decline in dysphagia. She underwent surgery for the placement of a percutaneous gastro

- jejunostomy (PGJ) feeding tube. And t he surgery appeared successful. USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 2 of 721

- 12966 Opinion of the Court 3
Later, however, Fernandez needed to use the restroom. So three nurses executed a “Hoyer lift” to move her from the hospital bed. During the maneuver , Fernandez cried out in pain. Her condition then worsened. The hospital staff stopped her feedings and c ompleted an X

- ray and CT scan. The testing revealed free abdominal air, a collapsed stomach, and fluid in the pelvis. Accordingly, doctors performed another surgery to remove the PGJ tube

— which had become dislodged

. The next day, Fernandez became unrespo nsive and passed away. Her autopsy revealed that she had died of sepsis and aspiration pneumonia due to complications arising from the dislodged PGJ tube. Jimenez sued the United States under the F ederal T ort C laims A ct , alleging various theories of medic al negligence. The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment , explaining that Jimenez “fail[ed] to present any expert evidence with respect to the standard of care applicable to the placement and securing of a PGJ tube or the pro per use of a Hoyer lift to move a patient

. ” Jimenez appealed.
II
“We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing all evidence in favor of the nonmoving party.” Gelber v. Akal Sec., Inc. , 14 F.4th 1279, 1282 n.2 (11th Cir.
2 021). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 3 of 74 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12966 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322

– 23 (198 6).
III
Plaintiffs injured by the negligence of the VA ’ s medical professionals can sue the United States under the FTCA

. Smith v. United States , 7 F.4th 963, 973 (11th Cir. 2021)

. When they do , t he “source of substantive liability ” is the “‘la w of the place where the act or omission occurred .’” FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471, 477

– 78 (1994) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) )

. H ere, that means the law of Florida governs our analysis. In Florida, a medical

- negligence claimant has the burden of proving that “ the alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care .” Fla. Stat. § 766.102(1). “ The standard of professional care is a level of care, skill, and treatment that, in consideration of all surround ingcircumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by similar and reasonably prudent health care providers. ” Saunders v. Dickens , 151 So. 3d 434, 441 (Fla. 2014) (citing Fla. Stat. § 766.102(1)). E stablishing t h is standard “ usually necessitat es expert testimony by those physicians who perform similar services in the community .” Bush v. United States , 703 F.2d 491, 496 (11th Cir. 1983) ; accord Pate v. Threlkel , 661 So. 2d 278, 281 (Fla. 1995)

. While his wife’s death was certainly tragic, Jimenez has n’t marshal ed evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the VA breached its duty of care. Jimenez doesn’t dispute that USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 4 of 721

- 12966 Opinion of the Court 5

the VA acted reasonably following the Hoyer lift

— as his own expe rt acknowledged. But he insists that the evidence shows that the hospital breached its duty when it s staff (a) placed and secured the PGJ tube or (b) executed the Hoyer lift. We disagree as to both. Starting with the placement of the PGJ tube, one of the defendant’s expert s opined that the procedure “was performed without complication and the tube was confirmed to be in good position with the aid of fluoroscopy.” The tube was also “secured

. . . in place with a self

- retaining loop and balloon.” As a res ult, the expert was “quite confident in saying that the standard of

care was met

. . . despite [ the ] unfortunate outcome.” An d an other expert was of the same opinion. In response, Jimenez’s expert, Dr. Steven Lee

- Kong, noted that “dislodgement of gastron omy tubes is a known complication of their use,” and he confirmed that “the risks of dislodgement can be minimized by careful attention during their placement.” But Dr. Lee

- Kong didn’t offer any opinion as to the applicable standard of care for placing or securing PGJ tubes. Nor did he suggest that the standard was breached here . As such, Dr. Lee

- Kong’s expert report doesn’t create a genuine issue of material fact. That brings us to the Hoyer lift. Again, both defense experts concluded that the lift was n’t performed negligently. And again, Dr. Lee

- Kong didn’t offer a contrary opinion. To be sure, he said that “it appears that the tube was dislodged on or around the time” Fernandez was moved. But he didn’t suggest or explain how the tube becoming dislodged was a product of negligence. Nor did he USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 5 of 76 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12966 offer any opinion as to whether the hospital staff breached medical protocol in executing the lift. He simply noted that the risk of dislodgement could be “minimized” by exercising “careful attention” during patient movement. H e then declined to offer an opinion as to whether such attention was exercised in this cas e, remarking only that “ [d] etails surrounding how [Fernandez] was moved should be more clearly characterized further.” Thus , Dr. Lee

Kong’s report doesn’t permit Ji menez to survive summary judgment on the lift

- related claim either

. Finally, Jimenez emp hasizes his testimony that his wife immediately cried out in pain while being lifted . He’s right that a reasonable jury could infer from this testimony that the PGJ tube became dislodged during the Hoyer lift. But causation isn’t enough to establish liab ility. See Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc. , 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984)

. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the harm was proximately caused by a breach of the standard of

care

. “ N egligence cannot be inferred from the fact that the ” medical provider’s actions were “ unsuccessful or terminated in unfortunate results.” Sims v. Helms , 345 So. 2d 721, 723 (Fla. 1977) ; see also Fla. Stat. § 766.102(3)(b)

. * * * In sum, Jimenez failed to offer evidence as to “ what standard of care existed under the circumstances of the case .” Stepien v. Bay Mem ’l

Med. Ctr. , 397 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) . Absent such evidence, “ a lay jury could not have determined, except by pure speculation, whether [the hospital staff] chose the correct USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 6 of 721

- 12966 Opinion of the Court 7

method of treatment or whether [they] deviated from accepted medical practice ” in placing and securing the PGJ tube or executing the Hoyer lift. Sims , 345 So. 2d at 723. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate. See id. at 724.
We AFFIRM

. USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 7 of 7