Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
63 Cal. 4th 75
| Cal. | 2016Background
- On March 5, 2009 Catherine Flores, a hospital patient, fell when a raised hospital bed rail collapsed; she alleged the hospital negligently failed to inspect, maintain, or warn about the rail.
- A doctor had ordered the bedrail raised following a medical assessment of Flores’s condition; Flores conceded the medical decision to raise the rail.
- Flores sued PIH Health on March 2, 2011 (just under two years after the fall), alleging general negligence and premises liability.
- PIH Health demurred, arguing the claim is governed by MICRA's special malpractice limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5) — one year from discovery (or three years from injury) — and thus untimely; Flores argued the claim is ordinary negligence governed by the two-year statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
- The trial court sustained the demurrer; the Court of Appeal reversed; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether negligence in the use/maintenance of hospital equipment tied to medical care qualifies as "professional negligence" under § 340.5.
- The Supreme Court held the claim sounds in professional negligence under § 340.5 because the injury resulted from negligent use/maintenance of equipment integrally related to the plaintiff’s medical treatment (the bedrail implementing a doctor’s order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence in maintaining/using hospital equipment that injures a patient is "professional negligence" under § 340.5 | Flores: maintenance/inspection is ordinary negligence because it does not require specialized medical skill | PIH Health: any failure to maintain premises/equipment occurs in rendering services hospitals are licensed to provide, so § 340.5 applies | Held: § 340.5 applies when the negligent act occurs in the rendering of professional services — i.e., where the equipment is necessary or integrally related to medical diagnosis/treatment; Flores’s bedrail injury fits that test |
| How to interpret "in the rendering of professional services" in § 340.5 | Narrow view: requires acts involving particularized medical skill | Broad view: test is whether the act occurred in services for which the provider is licensed (would include all licensed duties) | Held: middle ground — not limited to high-skill acts, but also not every licensed duty; applies where equipment/acts are integral to provision of medical care |
| Whether violations of hospital licensing/maintenance regulations alone convert ordinary negligence into professional negligence | Flores: such violations are not controlling to make a malpractice claim | PIH Health: licensing duties (e.g., maintain premises) show the conduct is within services for which hospital is licensed | Held: Licensing/regulatory duties alone do not subsume the § 340.5 requirement; cannot collapse the "rendering" and "scope of license" elements |
| Statute of limitations consequence for Flores’s claim | Flores: claim subject to § 335.1 two-year period, so timely | PIH Health: claim subject to § 340.5 one-year-from-discovery rule, so untimely | Held: Because claim is professional negligence under § 340.5, the one-year-from-discovery limitation applies and Flores’s suit was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal.3d 176 (recognizing malpractice standards and discovery rule history)
- Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital, 18 Cal.3d 93 (discussing discovery rule in medical malpractice context)
- Murillo v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 99 Cal.App.3d 50 (holding negligent failure to secure bed rails implicated professional duties of hospital)
- Gopaul v. Herrick Memorial Hosp., 38 Cal.App.3d 1002 (drawing distinction between ordinary negligence and professional malpractice)
- Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal.4th 1225 (interpreting similarly worded statute § 340.6 and focusing on whether claim necessarily depends on violation of professional obligation)