Opinion ID: 145518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability of the Hospital.

Text: We move next to the plaintiffs' challenge to the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. We need not tarry. The plaintiffs' brief is devoid of any developed argumentation as to the issue of the Hospital's liability. It offers only an oblique suggestion that the Hospital was vicariously liable for the acts of Dr. Serrano (ostensibly an independent contractor) and a conclusory assertion that Stephanie's injuries were the result of the Hospital's condonation of ... negligent acts and malpractice on the doctor's part. Appellants' Br. at 10. This sparse rhetoric falls well short of satisfying the imperative that an appellant's brief must set forth her contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). To say more about this assignment of error would be supererogatory. By their failure to present any developed argumentation with respect to the Hospital's liability, the plaintiffs have waived their claim that the district court erred in granting the Hospital's motion for summary judgment. See Adorno v. Crowley Towing & Transp. Co., 443 F.3d 122, 124 n. 2 (1st Cir.2006) (declining to address argument that district court erred in granting summary judgment because appellants' brief failed to develop any ... argument sufficiently to put the correctness of the summary judgment rulings in dispute); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990) (explaining that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived).