Flores v. Presbyterian Inter-community Hospital
May 05, 2016OUTCOME: Prevailed
A patient was injured when her hospital bed's rail, ordered raised by the doctor, failed due to improper latching by an attendant, and she fell to the floor. Plaintiff's claim was not brought timely u ... nder California's one year statute of limitations on malpractice actions. Plaintiff asserted that negligence by hospital staff in maintenance or operation of bed rails was "ordinary negligence" rather than "professional negligence," and asserted it was outside of the scope of MICRA. Though this was a statute of limitations case, MICRA also imposes limits on damages - giving the question wider implications. Flores v. Presbyterian made its way from the trial court all the way to the California Supreme Court on the question of the statute of limitations under CCP 340.5. Fonda & Associates, PC, briefed and argued the defense's case. The lead attorney was Peter M. Fonda (now retired). Daniel A. Fonda contributed to the briefing and attended argument, along with counsel for amici. The California Supreme Court held that: …if the act or omission that let to plaintiff’s injuries was negligence in the maintenance of equipment that….was reasonably required to treat or accommodate a physical or medical condition of the patient, the plaintiff’s claim is one of professional negligence under section 340.5. But section 340.5 does not extend to the negligence in the maintenance of equipment and premises that are merely convenient for, or incidental to, the provision of medical care to a patient….Although a defect in such equipment may injure patients as well as visitors or staff, a hospital’s general duty to keep such items in good repair generally overlaps with the ‘obligations that all person subject to California’s laws have’ [citation], and thus will not give rise to claim for professional negligence.” Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 75, 88-89.
