Shackleford v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources

534 So. 2d 38, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2337
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 9, 1988
DocketNo. 87-886
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 534 So. 2d 38 (Shackleford v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shackleford v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources, 534 So. 2d 38, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2337 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

KNOLL, Judge.

Trinilee H. Shackleford, individually and as administrator of the estate of his son, Terry Wayne Shackleford, appeals the dismissal of his suit for damages against the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), arising out of the abuse and/or neglect of Terry, a resident at Pinecrest State School (Pine-crest) located in Pineville, Louisiana.

The trial court found that the evidence failed to prove any dereliction on the part of the defendant. Mr. Shackleford contends that the trial court: (1) erred in failing to correctly apply the special duty-risk criteria of Daniels v. Conn, 382 So.2d 945 (La.1980), with respect to mentally retarded patients in the State of Louisiana to the facts of this case; and, (2) committed mani[40]*40fest error. We reverse, finding that Pine-crest failed to provide proper supervision and care to protect Terry from danger. We do not reach this conclusion under Daniels, supra, which involved a duty-risk analysis in the death of a resident of Pine-crest as a result of an automobile accident. We reach our conclusion under the standard of care Pinecrest owes its patients.

FACTS

Terry is a severely mentally retarded person, with limited understanding, possessing a mental age of 4½ years. His chronological age at the time of trial was 21 years. He has been institutionalized since he was 5 years of age, and has been at Pinecrest since 1971. Terry is approximately 4 feet 2 inches tall, strong and stocky. In addition to being mentally retarded, Terry is a diabetic and hyperactive. As a result of his diabetes he bruises easily and his bones are more susceptible to fracture. The injuries complained of occurred during the latter part of 1978 through the latter part of 1979. Terry was 13 years of age then. Suit was filed in December of 1979, and the case was tried on February 4, 1987.

The record shows that Terry has a long history of multiple injuries on a frequent basis while he was in cottage 313 at Pine-crest, that predate the injuries that initiated this suit. Pinecrest admits these injuries, but denies that the injuries were caused by abuse and/or neglect. The type of injuries include: bruises and knots about the head, face, groin and body; cuts and scratches to his head and body requiring stitches; broken front teeth; a dislocated thumb; a broken wrist and thumb, and black eyes. The record shows that Terry was injured almost daily.

In December of 1978, Terry’s mother was summoned to Pinecrest by Dr. R.L. Robbins, a general practitioner at Pine-crest, because of a thumb injury Terry received; he dislocated his left thumb. Before she left, Dr. Robbins showed her multiple bruises on Terry’s buttocks, hips and legs. Mrs. Shackleford took pictures of these bruises and discussed the matter with Pinecrest personnel, but nothing was done. The record shows that this was not the first time Terry had multiple bruising. Previous to this bruising, Mrs. Shackleford was visiting her son at Pinecrest and saw him limping when he walked. She inspected him and found multiple bruising to his groin. When she saw multiple bruising on Terry’s buttocks, out of concern for her son, she turned the matter over to the Office of Family Services, Division of Child Protection, the Department of Health and Human Resources, since Pinecrest failed to heed her concern.

The Protection Unit, along with the Rap-ides Parish Sheriff’s Office, investigated the matter and rendered a report. The report, dated January 26, 1979, made 5 basic factual conclusions about Terry and his treatment at Pinecrest:

“1. Terry Shackleford had been abused by either an employee or another resident at Pinecrest.
2. The history of trauma to Terry is extensive and suggests a need for a more protective environment for him or closer supervision in his present program.
3. In Terry’s unit some Pinecrest employees were using paddles and brush handles in violation of facility guidelines. In addition, one employee was using der-rogatory language toward Terry and other residents in violation of facility guidelines.
4. In Terry’s unit there were indications that residents were being allowed to discipline other residents with the consent if not at the initiation of staff.
5. The parents are expressing concern about trauma to their child, but they perceive the Pinecrest authorities as being unconcerned about the trauma, responding with denial and cover-up tactics. On the other hand, facility personnel perceive the parents as being agitators, uncooperative in treatment plans and looking for a basis for a lawsuit.”

The record does not indicate that any action was taken by Pinecrest as a result of this investigation, even though the Child Protection Agency report suggested fur[41]*41ther assessment and observation by the facility to avert future trauma to Terry. After the report was made, Terry continued to receive repeated injuries.

On October 17,1979, Terry was admitted to Huey P. Long Memorial Hospital for treatment of his wrist. He was seen by an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed fractures to his thumb and wrist as being approximately 4 weeks old. Shortly after this injury, Mr. Shackleford filed this suit.

STANDARD OF CARE

The standard of care that Pinecrest must follow for its patients is succinctly stated in Meynier v. De Paul Hospital, 218 So.2d 98 (La.1969) at page 102:

“The hospital must exercise the reasonable care toward a patient as the patient’s known condition may require. Plaintiff’s condition and the facts and circumstances peculiarly applicable to this plaintiff on this particular occasion were all well known to the hospital employees who had her in charge. The hospital is liable for the results of the want of ordinary care whether the failure to exercise such care is due to incompetence or nonperformance of duty by the employee. This extends to safeguarding the patient from dangers due to mental and physical incapacity. If the hospital, through its employees, does something which it should not have done or failed to do something which it should have done as the result of negligence or inattention, amounting to less than reasonable and ordinary care of the patient, the hospital must be held liable for the consequences. 41 C.J.S. Hospitals § 8, p. 849, and notes.”

Our research of the standard of care a hospital owes its patients shows that this is still the prevailing view. A “community standard” is not to be applied in determining if a hospital has been negligent under a particular set of facts. Ray v. AmeriCare Hospital, 400 So.2d 1127 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981), writ denied, 404 So.2d 277 (La.1981).

In the case sub judice, Pinecrest does not dispute Terry’s injuries or the frequency that he received injuries. Pine-crest’s position is that it is not responsible for Terry’s injuries because it could not control Terry. The trial court in its reasons for judgment found that Terry presented a disciplinary problem because of his mental disabilities; it further found no dereliction on the part of Pinecrest, and “no actionable negligence”.

After a careful review of the record, we find the trial court clearly erred in not applying the standard of care a hospital owes its patients.

Terry is severely mentally retarded and is not accountable for his actions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sam v. Genesis Behavioral Hosp., Inc.
255 So. 3d 42 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2018)
Austin v. St. Charles General Hosp.
587 So. 2d 742 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Shackleford v. STATE EX REL. DHHR
534 So. 2d 38 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
534 So. 2d 38, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shackleford-v-state-ex-rel-department-of-health-human-resources-lactapp-1988.