Sandra Kipfer v. Providence Health & Services, 81155-0

On Sept. 30, 2016, Sandra Kipfer went to Providence Everett Medical Center for a blood draw and was directed to sit in a swivel chair with a footrest in the lab.
Kipfer stepped on the footrest to get into the chair, the chair swiveled, and she fell, sustaining head, arm, shoulder, and hip injuries.
The phlebotomist was not assisting Kipfer or providing medical care at the moment; she was seated at a computer and heard the fall.
Kipfer sued Providence for negligence/premises liability (no medical malpractice claim), alleging failure to warn and maintain a safe premises.
Providence moved for summary judgment arguing chapter 7.70 RCW (actions arising from health care) governed the claim and therefore expert testimony was required; the trial court granted summary judgment applying 7.70.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding as a matter of law chapter 7.70 RCW did not apply because the injury occurred before the delivery of care, and characterized the claim as premises liability, remanding for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of chapter 7.70 RCW	Kipfer: injury occurred before blood draw; claim is general negligence/premises liability	Providence: suit "arises from health care," so 7.70 applies regardless of label	7.70 does not apply as a matter of law because injury occurred prior to the provision of care
Expert testimony requirement under 7.70	Kipfer (alt.): she submitted competent expert evidence	Providence: no competent expert established standard of care	Court did not apply 7.70; thus expert-rule analysis under 7.70 was unnecessary to decide the appeal
Nature of claim — premises liability vs. medical malpractice	Kipfer: unsafe chair and failure to warn rendered premises negligent	Providence: the incident is tied to health-care delivery and falls within 7.70	Court held the claim is premises liability (not health-care professional negligence) because harm occurred outside the process of providing care
Appropriateness of summary judgment	Kipfer: disputed facts on ordinary negligence preclude summary judgment	Providence: absence of required expert (if 7.70 applies) justifies summary judgment	Summary judgment was improper under 7.70 analysis; case reversed and remanded for trial on ordinary negligence issues

Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 182 Wn.2d 136 (2014) (under chapter 7.70 expert testimony generally required to prove standard of care)
Branom v. State, 94 Wn. App. 964 (1999) (chapter 7.70 sweeps broadly but does not reach all health-care-related conduct)
Reed v. ANM Health Care, 148 Wn. App. 264 (2008) (key question is whether injury occurred during the process of providing medical care)
Estate of Sly v. Linnville, 75 Wn. App. 431 (1994) (declining to apply 7.70 where injury was unrelated to delivery of care)
Mohr v. Grantham, 172 Wn.2d 844 (2011) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)