Chamis v. Ashland Hospital Corp.
532 S.W.3d 652
Ky. Ct. App.2017Background
- Kathleen Chamis brings suit as Executrix of her late husband Chris Chamis’s estate against KDMC for alleged negligence in December 2012 at KDMC.
- Chris was high fall risk with a red armband and a care plan requiring all four bed rails to be up and two-person assistance for ambulation.
- On December 12–14, 2012, Kathleen left Chris at KDMC; between 2:00 a.m. on December 15, 2012, he fell from his bed, injuring himself.
- Latimer, the charge nurse, observed Chris on the floor and noted four rails were up when she entered, though the record contains conflicting accounts.
- KDMC moved for summary judgment arguing this was a medical malpractice case requiring expert testimony to prove standard of care and breach.
- The Estate contends that res ipsa loquitor eliminates the need for expert testimony because the fall defense would show a failure to follow the hospital’s own care plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitor applies without an expert. | Chamis contends res ipsa shows breach given rails should have been up. | KDMC argues medical malpractice standard requires expert proof of breach. | Expert testimony required; res ipsa not controlling here. |
| Whether expert testimony is required to establish the hospital’s standard of care and breach in a fall case. | Chamis argues no expert is needed to show hospital care plan was not followed. | KDMC asserts medical-malpractice framework demands expert proof of standard and breach. | Expert testimony is necessary to establish professional judgment and breach. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment. | Chamis asserts genuine issues of material fact exist; res ipsa and witness testimony raise disputes. | KDMC maintains no material factual dispute; standard of care shown by depositions and records. | No abuse of discretion; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caniff v. CSX Transp., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2014) (negligence can be established without expert testimony in ordinary cases)
- Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2010) (medical malpractice requires proof of standard, breach, and injury)
- Green v. Owensboro Medical Health System, Inc., 231 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. App. 2007) (trial court discretion on whether expert testimony is required)
- Ratliff v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd., 515 S.W.2d 225 (Ky. 1974) (when measures beyond routine care are needed, expert testimony not required)
- Crosthwait v. Southern Health Corp. of Houston, Inc., 94 So.3d 1070 (Miss. 2012) (determining professional judgment in fall risk matters)
- Andrew v. Begley, 203 S.W.3d 165 (Ky. App. 2006) (res ipsa may allow inference in appropriate medical contexts)
- McGraw v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 200 W.V. 114 (W. Va. 1997) (hospital fall cases and the need for professional judgment)
- Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d 652 (Ky. 1992) (standard of care in medical contexts)