Recent California Supreme Court case highlights the difference between the statute of limitations on professional negligence and ordinary negligence.
In most personal injury cases, the statute of limitations is quite straightforward: you have two years from the time you were injured—or from the time you first discovered your injury—to file a claim.
But as one case recently decided by the Supreme Court of California shows, matters can get more complicated when professional negligence—as opposed to ordinary negligence—is involved.
Catherine Flores v Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
The case involved a woman, Catherine Flores, who fell out of a hospital bed at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital on March 5, 2009. All parties agreed that the fall was caused by the failure of a latch on the bedrail, which made the hospital responsible for her injuries via premises liability.
What they disagreed on was whether the failed bed rail latch showed ordinary negligence or professional negligence. This is a key detail because the statute of limitations for professional negligence is only one year after the injury is discovered.
Flores and her attorney filed a premises accident lawsuit almost two years after the fall, arguing that the statute of limitations for ordinary negligence applied. After having her case initially rejected by the trial court and then allowed by the Court of Appeal, the issue went before the Supreme Court of California.
The Court had some widely divergent precedents to refer to. The first seminal case, Gopaul v Herrick Memorial Hospital, held that professional negligence can only occur within the “scope of the skill, prudence, and diligence commonly exercised by practitioners of the profession.” The second case, Murillo v Good Samaritan Hospital, took the broader position that professional negligence can occur “in the rendering of services for which the health care provider is licensed.”
The Court tried to strike a middle ground between the two prior opinions, finding that the maintenance of equipment “necessary or integrally related to” treatment or diagnosis of a patient falls under the professional purview.
In the Flores case, the Court found that failure to maintain a hospital bed rail fell into this definition of professional negligence, because Flores’ doctor had specifically ordered the bed rails be raised. Therefore the statute of limitations was just one year after the discovery of the injury, and Flores was not able to proceed with her case.
This case highlights the importance of consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney who is intimately familiar with all aspects of the law early on in your case. You can rely on Attorney Vargas to give you accurate information and expert advice in even the most complex case. To discuss your personal injury case with him, please call us at 909-982-0707 and request a free initial consultation.
