Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) ___ Cal.4th ___, S209836, 2016 WL ___________.
Plaintiff Catherine Flores sued Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital for premises liability and negligence, seeking damages for injuries she sustained (more than one year before filing suit) when a siderail on her hospital bed collapsed and she fell to the floor. The Hospital demurred, arguing that MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence barred the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.) The trial court sustained the Hospital’s demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the accident amounted to general (not professional) negligence, which is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the action sounded in general negligence because the bed rail did not collapse while the hospital was rendering professional services.
The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer. Each party had proposed a test for distinguishing ordinary from professional negligence based on prior case law, but the Supreme Court rejected the proposals. Instead, the Supreme Court focused on distinguishing the professional obligations of hospitals in rendering medical care to patients from their obligations (by virtue of operating public facilities) to maintain a safe premises for all users. The Court held that, “if the act or omission that led to the plaintiff’s injuries was negligence in the maintenance of equipment that, under the prevailing standard of care, was reasonably required to treat or accommodate a physical or mental condition of the patient, the plaintiff’s claim is one of professional negligence under section 340.5.” (Slip op. 15.) Under this test, the Supreme Court indicated that the professional negligence statute of limitations would not apply if a person was injured when a chair collapsed in a hospital waiting room. But the Court held that the bed rail collapse in this case was different because a doctor had assessed Flores’ condition and made a medical decision ordering the rails on her bed raised. Accordingly, the Court applied the professional negligence statute of limitations, which barred Flores’ claim. The broad new test adopted by the Supreme Court can be seen as likely to expand MICRA’s applicability.
Peder K. Batalden – Horvitz & Levy LLP
15760 Ventura Blvd., 18th Floor
Encino, California 91436-3000
MAIN: 818.995.0800 – FAX: 818.995.3157
www.horvitzlevy.com – pbatalden@horvitzlevy.com
