Slip-and-fall in hospital. $3.9M. San Bernardino County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On May 13, 2019, 58-year-old plaintiff was visiting her ill mother at St. Mary Medical Center in Apple Valley. As she was walking down a hallway, she slipped and fell on some liquid. After some time, she was helped to her feet and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation of her pain symptoms. In the ER, the staff at St. Mary's performed X-rays of various body parts including her hips. In one of the hip X-rays, there was a suspected fracture. However, plaintiff was not told about this finding, and was instead discharged home with instructions to rest, ice, compress and elevate her injured body parts.

  Assuming her X-ray was normal, plaintiff spent the next few months attempting to heal at home, but when her symptoms got worse over time, she went to see her primacy care physician who started her on a regimen on physical therapy. After months of physical therapy and no improvement, plaintiff finally went to see an orthopedic specialist, who performed another X-ray of her hip and discovered the fracture from her slip-and-fall. Shocked by the news of her fracture, plaintiff had surgery a few days later. After her recovery, she decided to order her old records from St. Mary's and her left hip X-ray report had the word "fracture" in it.  She hired an attorney a year after the original slip-and-fall, and so much of the evidence, including the entirety of the surveillance footage from that day, had already been lost.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That plaintiff was shocked to see the X-ray report in the ER noted a hip fracture, as she had not been informed of this.

  Without surveillance footage from that day, plaintiff was unable to prove the source of the liquid on the floor or how long it had been there. However, during the expert testing of the floors, the coefficient of friction under wet conditions was extremely low (0.125 on average).

  During the deposition of the hospital's head of maintenance, it was revealed that the hospital buffed and scrubbed the floors every night with a motorized buffer/scrubber to maintain shininess. Both the liability experts agreed that it was this very conduct that contributed to the low coefficient of friction numbers that were found during testing. Accordingly, it was plaintiff's position that defendant's conduct created the dangerous condition on their floors, and so they were charged with notice of the risk, under the law.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant argued that there was insufficient liquid on the floor to cause a fall and that instead plaintiff lost consciousness or her knee gave out, causing her fall. They also contended they did not have notice of the spill (as it did not exist). They also contended that their maintenance program was typical for hospitals in the area and was meant to combat infection, not just maintain shininess. Finally, they contended that Denise had a long history of orthopedic issues in her knees and that her quality of life did not significantly change after the incident. They also accused her of being "litigation savvy" and a "money grubber."