Patient Fall: Jury Inconsistency Grounds For New Trial

Patient Fall: Jury Inconsistency Grounds For New Trial.

Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession

December 2017

The judge gave the jury a number of Yes-or-No questions to answer in their verdict as to the liability and damages issues in the patient’s lawsuit against the hospital. The jury answered "No" as to whether the patient’s nurse was negligent but answered "Yes" as to whether the hospital was negligent for failing to train the nurse in fall-risk assessment and fall prevention. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA November 9, 2017

Two days after knee surgery the patient fell in her hospital room. Days later she was diagnosed with an avulsion fracture of the tibial tubercle on the operative leg and was transferred from med/surg to the rehab wing for further care. The patient’s lawsuit against the hospital alleged negligence by her nurse that day in fall-risk assessment and fall prevention. Specifically the nurse let the patient wear ordinary socks rather than insisting on non-slip hospital socks.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled the only way to clear up the jury’s confused verdict was to order a new trial. The Court could not sort out what portion of the compensation sought by the patient was for the nurse’s negligence which could not be awarded because the jury ruled the nurse was not negligent, and what portion could be awarded for the hospital’s negligence in failing to train the nurse in fall-risk assessment and fall prevention. It was also impossible to sort out what compensation was due to the patient for delay in diagnosis of the fracture in the rehab unit as opposed to the fall itself. Shiflett v. Health, __ A. 3d __, 2017 WL 5184429 (Penna. Super., November 9, 2017).