Daily Blast May 5, 2016

The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (May 5, 2016, S209836) __ Cal.4th __, analyzing whether the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury or the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence applies to a patient injured as a result of the rail on her hospital bed collapsing. (Slip opn., p. 1.) The Supreme Court held the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence applied because the plaintiff’s injury resulted from alleged negligence in the use and maintenance of equipment needed to implement the doctor’s order concerning the plaintiff’s medical treatment. (Id. at p. 2.)

Plaintiff, a patient at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (“PIH”), sustained injuries after the latch on her bedrail failed and rail collapsed as she attempted to get out of the bed. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Plaintiff sued PIH just under two years after she fell from her hospital bed. The doctor made a medical decision to order plaintiff’s bedrails be raised following a medical assessment of her condition. (Ibid.) PIH demurred arguing the one-year statute of limitations for profession negligence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 (“section 340.5”) barred plaintiff’s action. (Ibid.) The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court granted review. (Id. at p. 3.)

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and held that the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence applied to plaintiff’s action. (Slip opn., p. 2.) The court reasoned that whether negligence in maintaining hospital equipment or premises qualifies as professional negligence depends on the nature of the relationship between the equipment or premises in question and the provision of medical care to plaintiff. (Id. at p. 14.) A hospital’s negligent failure to maintain equipment that is necessary or otherwise integrally related to the medical treatment and diagnosis of the patient implicates a duty that the hospital owes to a patient by virtue of being a health care provider. (Id. at pp. 14-15.)  The court held that plaintiff’s injuries occurred in the rendering of professional services because plaintiff alleged PIH failed to properly implement the doctor’s order based on a medical assessment of her condition that the bed rails be raised. (Id.at p. 16.) The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s opinion and held that the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence under section 340.5 barred plaintiff’s action. (Id. at pp. 16-17.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate