Shaw v. PLANTATION MANAGEMENT, LLC
This text of 5 So. 3d 1059 (Shaw v. PLANTATION MANAGEMENT, LLC) 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.
Opinion
GERALDINE M. SHAW, DONALD R. SHAW AND LINDA J. VARNUM.
v.
PLANTATION MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., D/B/A HARVEST MANOR NURSING HOME, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND JOHN M. ROLLINSON.
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit.
JOHN P. AYDELL, JR. Baton Rouge, La, DAVID A. ABRAMSON, New Orleans, La, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Geraldine Shaw, et al.
CHARLES A. SCHUTTE, Jr. Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Plantation Management Company, L.L.C., D/B/A Harvest Manor. Nursing Home.
Before: CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE and DOWNING, JJ.
DOWNING, J.
In this appeal the relatives of an elderly man residing in a nursing home claim that his fall and ultimate death were caused by his slipping in his roommate's urine. Plaintiffs filed suit against the nursing home for negligently maintaining the premises. After a trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the nursing home, concluding that plaintiffs did not prove causation. From that judgment, plaintiffs appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs/appellants, Geraldine M. Shaw, Donald R. Shaw and Linda J. Varnum, sued Plantation Management Company, L.L.C., d/b/a Harvest Manor Nursing Home, and Reliance Insurance Company,[1] (collectively, Harvest Manor), whose negligence, they claim, led to the death of Ivan Shaw. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs allege in their appeal that the trial court erred by failing to find that the evidence showed, more probably than not, that Mr. Shaw slipped and fell in Mr. Shaw's roommate's urine, thus, establishing causation and giving rise to a presumption of negligence.
The situation encompassing the alleged negligence is as follows:
Eighty-three year old Ivan Shaw was suffering from dementia and psychosis. On January 3, 2000, he was admitted to Harvest Manor and was placed in a secured section, known as the locked unit, because of his reported behavior while living at home. The locked unit is reserved for patients with behavior problems associated with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, or suffering from other abnormal behavior problems.[2]
The locked unit holds up to twenty-five people and is kept locked because many of the residents residing in this unit are confused and wander aimlessly.[3] The locked unit is self-contained with a sitting area, patio, dining room and ten bedrooms. Each two bedrooms share a bath.
Mr. Shaw's roommate, John Rollinson, was suffering from senile dementia. Mr. Rollinson had recently transferred into the locked unit because of his conduct on the regular ward. Namely, he was urinating on other patient's beds.[4] Mr. Rollinson suffered incontinence and wore pads or diapers at night. There is no evidence that Mr. Shaw was incontinent of bowel or bladder, but he was on Flomax, a medication commonly prescribed for bladder control.[5] Both Mr. Shaw and Mr. Rollinson were ambulatory and free to use the bathroom without assistance.
On Mr. Shaw's third night at Harvest Manor he got out of bed, slipped, and fell to the floor. The attending nurse, Nurse Betty Carney, who did not testify, made a notation in her chart that Mr. Shaw told her he got up to use the bathroom and slipped in urine on the floor. He also told her that the urine was not his.[6]
Mr. Shaw was taken by ambulance to the hospital where it was determined that he sustained a right hip fracture with displacement. William J. Hubbard M.D., an orthopedist, immediately performed an internal fixation surgical intervention. On January 13, 2000, while still at the hospital, Mr. Shaw suffered breathing difficulties. His condition worsened and he passed away on January 14, 2000. The cause of death was obstructive apnea. Mr. Shaw had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In addition, he had an earlier surgery performed on his throat due to mandibular carcinoma, which caused the progressive loss of muscle tone at the back of his throat and neck used to maintain the breathing airway.[7]
Plaintiffs' petition alleges that Harvest Manor assigned Mr. Shaw to a room with Mr. Rollinson when it had notice that Mr. Rollinson's incontinence in urinating on the floor had manifested itself in the past. Plaintiffs claim that Harvest Manor failed to take steps to isolate Mr. Rollinson from other patients or to protect these patients from wet floors where they were likely to walk.[8]
DISCUSSION
The focus of this appeal is on whether the trial court had a reasonable factual basis to conclude that plaintiffs had not proven causation. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court incorrectly concluded that there were only two pieces of documentary evidence supporting their petition: (1) Mr. Shaw's statements to the nurse who found him on the floor and (2) Nurse Susan Hicks' note of January 3, 2000, which said, in pertinent part, that Mr. Rollinson was very confused during the daytime, and worse in the evening, and at night, he gets out of bed and urinates on other patient's beds, and the floor, etc., and that she was concerned for the patient's safety.[9]
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court ignored the testimony of Peter Green, R.N., Harvest Manor's Director of Nursing. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Green testified that when he spoke to Nurse Carney, who did not testify, she informed him that Mr. Shaw slipped in urine and that she observed a liquid substance on the floor where Mr. Shaw fell. Plaintiffs argue that the most reasonable explanation for liquid to be on the floor at 2 o'clock a.m. is that it came from Mr. Rollinson. Plaintiffs further argue that it is unlikely that the urine on the floor was Mr. Shaw's since there is no evidence he suffered flow incontinence. Furthermore, Mr. Shaw told Nurse Carney that the urine was not his.
A plaintiff, in a slip and fall case against a hospital[10] must show the fall occurred and injury resulted from a foreign substance on the premises. See Neyrey v. Touro Infirmary, 94-0078, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/30/94), 639 So.2d 1214, 1216; Reynolds v. St. Francis Medical Center, 597 So.2d 1121, 1122 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992). The burden then shifts to the hospital to exculpate itself from the presumption of negligence. Id. Plaintiffs are trying to trigger this presumption.
This test requires that causation must be established before the presumption applies. In personal injury suits the test for determining the causal relationship between the incident in question and the subsequent injury is whether the plaintiff proved that it was more probable than not that the subsequent injury was caused by the accident. Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263, p. 5 (La. 1/7/07), 950 So.2d 557, 560. In this case, the trial court specifically stated that it could not find, more probably than not, that Mr. Rollinson got out of bed sometime prior to 2:00 o'clock a.m., urinated next to Mr. Shaw's bed, and that the presence of urine on the floor was the cause of Mr. Shaw's fall. The appellate court must not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its own factual findings because it would have decided the case differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong, even if the reviewing court would have decided the case differently. Detraz, 05-1263 at p. 7, 950 So.2dat561.
Plaintiffs urge this court to consider Peter Green's statement regarding Nurse Carney's statement to him as an admission that there was a liquid on the floor and that Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 So. 3d 1059, 2009 WL 1034812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-plantation-management-llc-lactapp-2009.