SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
JACYLN O GARRO,
PLAINTIFF,
SX 19 CV 112
V
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
Jury Trial Demanded
DR GASNEL E BRYAN DR RON
ANDERS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Cite as 2021 VI SUPER 55U
HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITY
CORPORATION
DEFENDANTS
Appearances
Lee J Rohn, Esq
I 108 King Street Suite 3
56 King Street Third Floor
Christiansted St Croix
WW
For Plamnfl
Denise N George, Esq
Assistant Attorney General
#213 Estate La Reine
Kingshill V100850
For Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
‘1] WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
tIII THIS MATTER is before the Court on Jaclyn O Garro s (hereinafter Plaintiff ) Motion to
Compel Virgin Islands Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation (hereinafter Defendant ) to
Supplement Discovery Responses filed on April 28 2020 Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel on May 7 2020
For the reasons stated herein the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant t0
Supplement Responses Nos 9 ll 19 and 23 and DENY Nos 5 6 8 12 and 18 Further Nos 20
22 will be DENIED unless the Defendant with reasonable efforts, can locate the information
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan, Dr Ron Anders and the Virgm Islands Hospitals and
Health Facdzty Corporatzon
SX 19 CV [12
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55H
Page 2 of 10
I Discussion
i Meet and Confer Requirement VI R Civ P 37 l
112 If a party served fails to make all necessary disclosures as required by V I R Civ P 33, the
party requesting disclosure may move to compel discovery under V I R Civ P 37(a)( l) ' The Motion
must satisfy certain requirements, Specifically, the motion must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action ’ V I R Civ P 37(a)(l) 3 The
certification must demonstrate in writing that prior to filing, counsel for the parties attempted to meet
and confer in good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for the motion to eliminate as many of the
disputes as possible V I R Civ P 37 [(3) ‘
AWWWmeQ—
Compel p 15) Plaintiff wrote to Defendant with information about its discovery responses (See
Exhibit 1) At the end of the e mail, Plaintiff wrote that a meet and confer could be held regarding the
discovery issues (See Exhibit l p l3) A meet and confer was held on March 17, 2020 at l I 00 a m
and Defendant agreed to supplement some of its responses but not all (See Exhibit 2) The Court finds
this sufficient pursuant to LRCi 37 l
ii Motion to Compel Legal Standard
114 For discovery to progress effectively each party must provide truthful, complete candid and
explicit responses to each individual discovery request M Regarding interrogatories the responding
party must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing unless the responding party
; Crtu, v Vzrgm Islands Water & Power Am}! 2020 V l LEXIS 45 (Super Ct 2020)
15:?
Id
‘ Id (citing Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS 66 at IO 20l9 VI SUPER 66U SI 18 at 3)
Jaclvn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Factltty Corporanon
SX 19 CV 112
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU
Page 3 of 10
demonstrates that he cannot do so with the exercise of reasonable efforts 6 See V I R Civ P 33
advisory committee 5 note to subpart (b) 7 Only when the responding party has made this
representation can he state that the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining other
documents 3 See V I R Civ P 33 advisory committee’s note to subpart (d) Otherwise, answering an
interrogatory by merely “referring to pleadings or other discovery is insufficient ” 96 A L R 2D 598
(1964) (collecting cases) 9
Interrogatory No 5
Interrogatory No 5 Identify by date and parties involved any and all
communications/consultations regarding the removal of Plaintiffs left and/or right ovary in
September 2018, among any of the Defendant’s employees contractors associates and others
including the nature/substance of such communication and/or consultation, the reason for same,
the results of the same and all actions taken by Defendant any Co Defendant and/or by Plaintiff
in response to such communication and/or consultation
Response to Interrogatory No 5 All communications regarding plaintiff’s care while at the
hospital are contained in the medical records previously produced
lnterrogatory No 6
lnterrogatory No 6 Describe all verbal and/or written instructions and communications of any
type whatsoever regarding the removal of her left and/or right ovary provided to Plaintiff by and
of Defendant 5 employees, contractors associates or and Co Defendant in September 20l8
Response to lnterrogatory No 6 See response to No S
‘115 Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure “an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may
be inquired into under Rule 26(b) [generally that it is relevant and discoverable] ” V IR Civ P
33(a)(2) Each interrogatory must be answered fully and any grounds for objection must be stated or
it may be waived V I R Civ P 33(b)(3) (4)
6 Id
7 Id
3 Id
‘ Id
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game] E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Faahtv Corporation
SX 19 CV 112
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU
Page 4 of 10
?I6 Regarding interrogatories, the responding party must answer each interrogatory separately
and fully in writing ” unless the responding party demonstrates that he cannot do so ‘with the exercise
of reasonable efforts ” Cru~ v Vlrgm Islands Water and Power Authorttv 2020 LEXIS VI 45 (Super
Ct 2020) See also VI R Civ P 33 advisory committees note to subpart (b) Only when the
responding party has made this representation can he state that the answer to an interrogatory may be
determined by examining other documents See V I R Civ P 33 advisory committee 5 note to subpart
(d)
‘|[7 Defendant alleges that Nos 5 and Nos 6 should not be supplemented because this information
is contained in the medical records which are detailed and self explanatory (See Defendant s Opp p
4) In addition Defendant meets their burden because they represented that it would be unreasonable
WWW
rule Defendant only needs to state why doing 90 cannot be done even with the exercise of reasonable
efforts The Court finds a detailed minute by minute recording to be sufficient to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and that it would be unreasonable to have Defendant simply narrate what is already
highly detailed Thus the Court will DENY supplementation for interrogatories No 5 and No 6
lnterrogatory No 8
Interrogatory N0 8 Describe in detail any and all diagnoses made by any of Defendant 5
employees and/or Co Defendant Dr Gasnel E Bryan and/or Co Defendant Dr Ron Anders
including but not limited to any and all medical practitioners, physicians and/or surgeons
concerning Plaintiff, at any time in September 20l8 describe any and all treatment/care
plans/recommendations made and identify all persons who participated in same and identify all
criteria/tests relied upon in making said diagnoses and treatment plans
Response to [nterrogatory No 8 Plaintiffs pre operative diagnoses were (1) progressive pelvic
pain and (2) pelvic mass Plaintiffs post operative diagnoses are (1) Right tubo ovarian complex
(2) hemorrhagic cyst of right ovary (3) extensive pelvic adhesions
Interrogatory No 12
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Camel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Fac iliry Corporation
8X 19 CV 112
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U
Page 5 0f 10
Interrogatory No 12 State in complete detail all complaints concerns and/or any statements
whatsoever made by Plaintiff to Defendant 3 employees and/or to any Co Defendant in this matter
and/or to any health practitioner physician and/or surgeon concerning the treatment of Plaintiff,
identify each person to whom the same were made and give a factual summary of the course of
action treatment, andlor care provided to her as a result, together with applicable dates
Response to Interrogatory No 12 None that we are aware of except this lawsuit
‘l[8 This Court has held when a response is blatantly insufficient it will be ordered to be
supplemented See Kralzk v Osage SIX Holdings LLC 2020 VI SUPER 69 (Super Ct 2020) (holding
responses were blatantly insufficient» The Court does not find Plaintiff’s reasoning for compelling
supplementation on No 8 or No 12 to be instructive here because the Defendant does not need to
show that information would be unreasonable Defendant simply answered the interrogatory Thus,
the Court will DENY supplementation on No 8 and No 12
—_W
Interrogatory No 9 Identify any and all lawsuits claims and complaints alleging negligence or
malpractice in connection with failing to remove the correct organ/body part and/or removing the
incorrect organ/body part at the Juan Luis Hospital during the past 5 years and as to each state the
names of the parties the court and docket number where filed the nature of the allegations, and
the ultimate disposition or status of the matter
Response to Interrogatory No 9 Objection Overbroad and irrelevant
‘l[9 Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may
be inquired into under Rule 26(b) [generally that it is relevant and discoverable] ’ V IR Civ P
33(a)(2) Each interrogatory must be answered fully and any grounds for objection must be stated or
it may be waived V I R Civ P 33(b)(3) (4) The Court determines whether information is relevant
by the standard provided by Virgin Islands Rule of Evidence 401 See Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS
66 at 5 6 2019 VI SUPER 66U ‘][l l at 2 Under this rule relevant information is that which has the
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more or less probable than it would be without [it] Donastorg 2019 V I LEXIS 66 at *6 2019 VI
SUPER 66U t1|12 at *2 See also Thomas v People ofthe VI 60 V I 183 196 (V I 2013)
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game] E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Vtrgm Islands Hospitals and
Health Faetltty Corporation
SX 19 CV 1 12
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU
Page 6 of 10
‘IIIO The Court finds this interrogatory relevant because the fact that medical malpractice in the form
of negligent removal of a body part within Juan Luis Hospital has happened before may make it more
likely it has happened again At this point in the discovery process this information should be available
to the Plaintiff, however it does not have to mean this information would be admissible in evidence '0
Thus the will GRANT supplementation on Interrogatory No 9
Interrogatory No 10
Interrogatory No 10 State whether the Defendant’s business and/or operator’s license to practice
has ever been limited, restricted denied, revoked, or suspended and/or compromised, and if so
state the applicable dates each reason for same, the current status of such business and/or
operator’s license, and the identity of the person, committee board or other such entity initiating
each and every such action against the business and/or operator’s license
Interrogatory No 10 Objection irrelevant
—_1nmaammn.
Interrogatory No 11 State whether the Defendant’s accreditation has ever been limited, delayed
restricted denied, taken away revoked reduced or suspended and/or compromised and if so, state
the applicable dates each reason for same the identity of the person, committee board or entity
initiating each and every such action relating to accreditation and the current status of each such
accreditation action
Response to lnterrogatory No 11 Objection irrelevant
1111 Again this is relevant to the claim of medical malpractice and the answer has a tendency to
make the fact Juan Luis Hospital was negligent more likely Defendant makes the argument that
because accreditation is peer review” it is not discoverable but fails to cite to any law or policy that
would persuade this Court May the Court set this as a reminder to Defendant and other litigants during
the discovery process that the Court will not make arguments for them Therefore and pursuant to the
'” lnfonnation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable Dallaslorg v
Walker No ST 17 CV 393 20l9Vl LEXIS 66 20|9 VI SUPER 96U fill at2 (VI Super Ct July ll 20l9)
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Facdlty Corporation
SX 19 CV 112
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U
Page 7 0f 10
Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence 401 the Court will GRANT supplementation on Interrogatory No
Il
Interrogatory No 18
Interrogatory No 18 Please identify and describe with particularity any and all acts and/or
omissions on the part of Plaintiff that Defendant contends caused and/or contributed in any
manner to the failure of Defendants to properly recognize and address Plaintiffs concerns as
set forth in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint identify all persons who will testify to this
effect and identify all documents test results and/or medical literature relied upon in support
of any and/or all of these contentions/facts
Response to lnterrogatory No 18 Defendants did not fail to recognize and address Plaintiff 8
concerns All caretakers will testify to that
Interrogatory No 19
lnterrogatory No 19 If Defendant contends that the treatment of Plaintiff by Co Defendants
in September 2018 met or exceeded the appliable medical standard of care, please identify this
two (2) persons who will testify to these facts and identify all documents test results, and
medical literature relied upon in support of any and/or all of these contention/facts
Response to Interrogatory No 19 The applicable standard of care is contained in the AGOG
guidelines on ovarian cysts
(l[12 In the absence of a demonstrated need for the specific information sought, a request can be
overbroad and unduly burdensome Sheeslev 2018 V I LEXIS 42 (Super Ct 2018) With regard to
Interrogatory No 18 this Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently answered the Interrogatory and
the Court will not compel a party to answer in an opposite way Supplementation of an interrogatory
should not be used for any other purpose than to require an answer when there is an insufficient
response Therefore the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s request on No 18
([[13 This Court has held when a response is blatantly insufficient it will be ordered to be
supplemented See Kraltk v Osage SIX Holdings LLC 2020 VI SUPER 69 (Super Ct 2020) (holding
responses were blatantly insufficient» The Court finds this to be the case here Defendant 5 response
is insufficient because it does not even describe what the AGOG is and it does not answer the
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Fatality Corporation
SX 19 CV l 12
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU
Page 8 of 10
statement and the Court finds this relevant to Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim The Court will
GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to compel 0n Interrogatory No 19
lnterrogatory No 20
Interrogatory No 20 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees that
were convened to review/investigate in any manner the claims made by Plaintiff concerning
Defendant, identify all persons who sat as members on this committee identify any and all reports
prepared by this committee, and describe in detail any and all findings and/or conclusions reached
by this committee and if no Medical Malpractice Review Committee was so convened state all
reasons why this was not done
Response to Interrogatory No 20 I do not have any information on the actions of the MMARC
Interrogatory No 21
lnterrogatory No 21 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees that
were convened to review/investigate in any manner that claims made by Plaintiff concerning Co
Mam
identify any and all reports prepared by this committee and describe in detail any and all findings
and/or conclusions reached by this committee, and if no Medical Malpractice Review Committee
was so convened state all reasons why this was not done
Response to Interrogatory N0 21 I do not have any information on the actions of the MMARC
Interrogatory No 22
lnterrogatory No 22 Please identify any and all Medical Malpractice Review Committees
that were convened to review/investigate in any manner the claims made by Plaintiff
concerning Co Defendant Dr Ron Anders identify all persons who sat as members on this
committee, identify any and all reports prepared by this committee and describe in detail any
and all findings and/or conclusions reached by this committee and if no Medical Malpractice
Review Committee was so convened state all reasons why this was not done
Response to Interrogatory No 22 I do not have any information on the actions of the
MMARC
‘l[l4 Plaintiff basically contends that the Medical Malpractice Action Review Committee
(hereinafter ‘MMARC ’) does not even exist (See Plaintiff’s Reply p 2) Plaintiff also claims that if
the MMARC does exist that it is not confidential (See Plaintiff 3 Reply p 2 3) Plaintiff is correct in
Jaclyn 0 Garro v Dr Gasnel E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospttals and
Health Faetltty Corporation
SX 19 CV ll2
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 55U
Page 9 of 10
arguing that the information and decisions by the MMARC are intended to be open to the claimant and
shared with the claimant See V 1 Code Title 27 §l66i (a) However if the Defendant claims they have
no information the Court cannot compel Defendant to provide something they do not have The Court
finds that Defendant did not specify that they could not with reasonable efforts obtain that
information
(Ills Therefore the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on Nos 20 22 only to the extent
that Defendant cannot reasonably obtain the MMARC information If Defendant obtains any
information or has in their possession information that would answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories than it
should be submitted to Plaintiff and filed as a Notice to the Court within fourteen (14) days of date
of entry of this Order If Defendant does not find any information after reasonable efforts, file a Notice
WWWWWW—
Interrogatory No 23
Interrogatory No 23 Please identify any and all insurance funds established by the
Government of the Virgin Islands for medical malpractice claims the date that said funds were
established identify any and all reports made by Defendant and/or the Government of the
Virgin Islands to any representative of the funds and state the date and content of each such
report
Response to Interrogatory No 23 The fund established to pay malpractice claims is
governed by statute 19 V I C l66e
‘1116 This response is blatantly insufficient The Defendant gives no explanation as to why they
answered in this way because it does not reasonably answer Interrogatory No 23 nor does it explain
why Defendant could not do so with reasonable efforts Thus the Court will GRANT supplementation
on Interrogatory No 23
Jaclyn 0 Garro ‘ Dr Game! E Bryan, Dr Ron Anders and the Vargm Islands Hospitals and
Health Fm 1111‘)! Corporanon
SX 19 CV 1 l2
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER SSU
Page 10 of 10
11 CONCLUSION
Thus the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Responses
Nos 9 l 1 l9 and 23 and DENY Nos 5 6 8 12 and 18 Nos 20 22 will be DENIED unless the
Defendant, with reasonable efforts, can locate information
It is hereby %
DONE and so ORDERED this 9&7 day of% 2021
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
ATTES'I
Tamara Charles, Clerk of Court
gate
m
Supervisor WfldZ-E
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
JACLYN 0’ GARRO,
PLAINTIFF, SX 19 CV 00112
v ACTION FOR DAMAGES
Jury Trial Demanded
Cite as 2021 VI Super 55U
DR GASNEL E BRYAN DR RON
ANDERS AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITY
CORPORATION
DEFENDANT
ORDER
AND NOW consistent with this Court 5 Memorandum Opinion entered in the above
captioned matter on even date, it is hereby
ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 5 is DENIED it is further
ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory N0 6 is DENIED it is further
ORDERED Plaintiff 5 Motion to Supplement [nterrogatory No 8 is DENIED it is further
ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 12 is DENIED it is further
ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Interrogatory No 18 is DENIED it is further
ORDERED Interrogatory N0 9 shall be supplemented it is further
ORDERED Interrogatory No 11 shall be supplemented it is funher
ORDERED Interrogatory No 19 shall be supplemented it is further
ORDERED Interrogatory No 23 shall be suppiemented it is further
Jaclyn 0 Garro 1 Dr Game! E Bryan Dr Ron Anders and the Virgin Islands Hospitals and
Health Facility Corporation
SX 19 CV 112
Order
Page 2 of 2
ORDERED Interrogatory Nos 20 22 are DENIED only to the extent that Defendant cannot
reasonably obtain the MMARC information If Defendant obtains any information or has in their
possession information that would answer Plaintiff s Interrogatories than it should be submitted to
Plaintiff and by Notice to the Court within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Order [f
Defendant does not find any information after reasonable efforts they should Motion to the
Plaintiff and file a Notice with the Court that no information was found within the fourteen (14)
day timeframe
It is hereby
DONE and so ORDERED this 9e“day of 140% 2021
O / / (
Am
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of Court
épervisor Wm f ”6
fi/Agéfiz/
Date