 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. Bernice Community Rehabilitation Hospital10/26/2005
MMC with a stroke and broken leg, Latasha wrote an accident report in which she explained that she heard a pop when Tammy moved the leg from behind Ms. Murphy and assumed the leg was broken.
Ms. Murphy cites In Re: Medical Review Panel For The Claim of Gertrude Young v. Bernice Community Rehabilitation Hospital, 38,402 (La. App. 2d Cir. 4/07/04), 870 So. 2d 467, writ denied, 2004-1402 (La. 9/24/04), 882 So. 2d 1132, in support of her claim that BCRH was negligent in failing to follow its safety rules for transferring patients. In Ms. Young's case, she was not wearing nonslip socks as required by the safety rules when she was imposed upon for testing a scale. We found that basic, common sense safety rules for transferring patients were to be followed in the hospital setting. The lack of nonslip footwear was an obvious cause of Ms. Young's foot slipping and resultant injury .
However, in this case, the record does not establish that the alleged violations contributed to the incident. Ms. Murphy did not fall or injure herself due to lack of equipment or insufficient supervision or assistance. Rather, her legs grew weak, and the aide lowered her to the floor as she had been trained to do. Nurses assisted in placing Ms. Murphy in a comfortable position and getting her off the floor. Ms. Murphy denied being injured and no complaints of unusual pain were reported at the time of the accident.
The jury could have reasonably concluded that BCRH did not breach the standard of care by failing to follow the transfer safety rules requiring personnel to use necessary equipment for transfers and to call for assistance if needed. The only equipment suggested for use was the gait belt; however, Latasha testified that she would have still had to lower Ms. Murphy to the ground even if she had been using the gait belt. Although Latasha testified that she was not aware of Ms. Murphy's fall risk and that she would have sought assistance if she'd known, her alleged lack of awareness must be considered with her testimony that she knew Ms. Murphy was to be a maximum assist patient. One obvious reason for Ms. Murphy requiring maximum assistance is that she was at risk for falling. Because of this risk, Ms. Murphy was being assisted and had the use of a wheelchair as provided in the nurse's notes at the time of her admission to BCRH. The record does not establish that Latasha required additional assistance with Ms. Murphy as she was able to ease her to the ground as she had been trained to do. However, she did require assistance to get Ms. Murphy off the ground and sought such assistance as required by BCRH's safety rules for transfers.
The jury could have also reasonably concluded that BCRH did not breach the standard of care in failing to follow its policy on patients assessed as fall risks. Ms. Murphy's room was four doors away from the nurse's station - the closest available at the time of her admission. Ms. Murphy was alert and oriented. As explained by Barbara Polk, BCRH's director of nursing in 2002, Ms. Murphy was shown to push the call button for assistance. She was not the type of confused patient who required the 24 hour attention of a sitter or family member. Nothing in the record suggests that the alleged failure to comply with the fall risk policy contributed to the incident at issue.
It was also reasonable for the jury to conclude that BCRH did not breach the standard of care by not contacting a doctor at the time of the incident. BCRH's first aid policy for falls provides that a patient who has a painful area, bumps, or limbs in an unnatural position should be permitted to remain on the ground, help should be summoned to call a doctor, and the doctor's orders should be
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|