DeRidder v. Sharp Memorial Hospital
Published: Sep. 27, 2001 | Result Date: Apr. 23, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GIC748291 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Thomas E. Lotz
(Lotz Doggett & Rawers LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Marilyn Kruse
(medical)
Allan Metz
(technical)
R. Bruce Hubbard
(medical)
Defendant
Catherine Shaffer
(medical)
David L. Braff
(medical)
Jon B. McDowell
(technical)
Jonathan Schliemer
(medical)
Facts
On Dec. 9, 1999, the patient, a 68-year-old man, was admitted from the Emergency Room to the medical surgical
unit at the defendant, Sharp Memorial Hospital. The patient had been seen at an Urgent Care Facility that night
for confusion and disoriented behavior such as drinking out of the toilet and urinating in a closet. It was felt
that he may have suffered a CVA and, at 10:30 p.m., he was transferred to Sharp Memorial Hospital for a CT
scan and observation.
At the time he was admitted to Sharp Memorial Hospital, the patient was only oriented as to his name. He did
not know where he was, where he lived or why he was in the hospital. The initial assessment showed that he
had slightly slurred speech and a decreased level of consciousness. The patient was unable to sleep, was
restless and was allowed to walk the halls under the supervision of the nursing staff. At one point, the patient
was observed walking into another personÆs room by mistake. He also attempted to put a diaper on his foot like
a shoe. He also indicated a desire to go home so a phone call was placed so he could talk to his wife. At about
1 a.m., the doors to the elevator bank were closed so that the patient would not wander off the floor. There was
a minor reconstruction project a week earlier whereby a window at the end of a hallway was opened to allow
paint fumes to escape and the screw that secured that window was not replaced. At approximately 3:30 a.m., a
visitor on the floor observed the patient smiling as he crawled out the eighth floor window. The visitor yelled
for nurses but the patient crawled out the window to his death before they could stop him.
The plaintiffs brought this action based on negligence and premises liability theories of
recovery.
Injuries
The plaintiffs suffered the death of a husband and father.
Other Information
The plaintiffÆs counsel sought a waiver of costs from the defendants following the verdict in exchange for an agreement not to move for a new trial or appeal. The defendants accepted the offer. The plaintiffsÆ counsel subsequently filed a motion for a new trial based on the forepersonÆs affidavit that there was juror misconduct. The plaintiffsÆ counsel took the position that when they agreed to waive their right to a new trial, they did so without knowledge of the alleged juror misconduct. The defendants opposed the motion as untimely, waiver and lacking sufficient evidence. Prior to the hearing on the motion, plaintiffsÆ counsel took it off calendar.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
11-1 (medical negligence), 10-2 (premises liability)
Length
five days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390