[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 7
2 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 WILSON, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case are very tragic. Adriano Jimenez’s wife 

passed away while receiving treatment 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, we affirm. While recognizing the tragic nature of 

this 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 the surgery appeared successful. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12966 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-12966 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 completed 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 unresponsive 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 Federal Tort 

Claims Act, alleging various theories of medical 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 proper 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. 

2021). 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 7
4 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 (1986).

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, the 

“source of substantive liability” is the “‘law 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)). Here, 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 surrounding 

circumstances, 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)). Establishing this standard “usually necessitates 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 hasn’t

marshaled 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 7
21-12966 Opinion of the Court 5

the VA acted reasonably following the Hoyer lift—as his own expert acknowledged. But he insists that the evidence shows that the 

hospital breached its duty when its 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 experts 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 result, the expert was “quite confident in saying that the standard of 

care was met . . . despite [the] unfortunate outcome.” And another 

expert was of the same opinion. In response, Jimenez’s expert, Dr. 

Steven Lee-Kong, noted that “dislodgement of gastronomy 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 wasn’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 7
6 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. He then declined to offer an opinion as 

to whether such attention was exercised in this case, remarking 

only that “[d]etails surrounding how [Fernandez] was moved 

should be more clearly characterized further.” Thus, Dr. LeeKong’s report doesn’t permit Jimenez to survive summary judgment on the lift-related claim either.

Finally, Jimenez emphasizes 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 liability. 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. “Negligence 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 7
21-12966 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