Facts

On April 23, 2003, plaintiff was admitted to Roe Hospital on a 72-hour hold due to an attempted suicide. Four days prior to the plaintiff's admission to Roe Hospital, Inmate, who was serving time in jail for battery and while incarcerated was on assault precautions because he was assaulting prisoners and guards, was transferred to Roe Hospital from the Los Angeles County Jail via Los Angeles County Harbor UCLA Medical Center. Inmate was continued on a 72-hour hold after being transferred from the Los Angeles County Jail.

Upon admission to Roe Hospital assault precautions were re-instituted by Roe Doctor. Roe Doctor was the attending and treating psychiatrist at Roe Hospital for both plaintiff and Inmate. Soon after admission, Inmate was observed to be stalking and sexually acting out toward patients and staff of Roe Hospital. On April 23, 2003, Inmate was placed on sexual acting-out precautions.

Upon admission to Roe Hospital, the plaintiff was placed in a less restrictive section of the hospital and provided a room. On the first night of plaintiff's admission she was told by the nurse on duty she had to sleep on the couch in the day room (in front of the nurse's station) so she could be "watched." The plaintiff became upset and could not understand since she had already been given a room and bed. The plaintiff became behaviorally out of control. The nurse telephoned Roe Doctor, who ordered the plaintiff transferred to a five-room private room area (PRA) in the Intensive Treatment Unit (ITU) of Roe Hospital. The plaintiff was placed directly across the hall from Inmate.

The patients in the ITU (a locked unit with 24-hour supervision) had access to each others' rooms (no locks), including the PRA room in which the plaintiff was placed. This particular five-room PRA had male and female patients. Each patient had some level of precautions assigned to them for either assault, sexual acting out and/or suicide. There was one bathroom for the five rooms. The PRA had cameras in the common area, a nursing window open to the common area and, at night, a person was to be seated in the common area. The plaintiff claimed Inmate harassed her. She admitted she never told the staff or Roe Doctor about Inmate's advances toward her.

Later in the evening of April 25, Inmate entered the plaintiff's room and raped her. The plaintiff told no one about this assault. In the early morning of April 26, Inmate again entered the room of the plaintiff and, for the second time, forcefully and brutally raped her. During the second rape, hospital staff caught Inmate in the act. Sometime later, the local police were summoned to Roe Hospital. Inmate was arrested, charged and, after being rendered competent to stand trial, pled guilty to the two rapes. At the time of the incidents, the cameras were apparently not working and the hospital had not put a person in the common area during the night. Roe Doctor was not aware of this.

At the time of the incidents, the plaintiff was 23 years old, a single mother of one, and worked as a pharmacy technician.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to supervise the plaintiff and breached numerous State and Federal statutes and regulations. The defendants also breached its own internal protocols and procedures. The defendants had a duty to provide the plaintiff with custodial care and supervision as well as rights afforded her under the Lanterman Petris-Short (LPS) Act, specifically, "to protect mentally disordered persons . . . from criminal acts as provided by California Welfare & Institutions Code, section 5001, et seq. of the LPS Act. The defendants violated California Welfare & Institutions Code, section 5325.1 which provides . . . "A right to be free from harm, including unnecessary or excessive physical restraint, isolation, medication, abuse or neglect . . ." This particular statute was designed to protect persons such as the plaintiff from exactly the type of harm she suffered.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Roe Doctor testified at his deposition that it was the plaintiff's prerogative to remain in the PRA. He also contended the hospital controlled the staff and all aspects of patient care and supervision when the doctors are not at the hospital. Roe Doctor had no knowledge that the hospital was not monitoring the PRA as its own protocols required or that the camera system was flawed. Had a person been posted at night as required, these incidents would never had occurred. The defendant doctor argued the case was a medical malpractice/negligence action, and not a "dependent adult abuse" action as to him.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $1.5 million as to both defendants. After Roe Hospital settled, the plaintiff demanded $875,000 from Roe Doctor.

Injuries

Post-traumatic stress disorder and exacerbation of depression. Future damages included additional psychotherapy and delayed academic and career goals.

Result

The case settled for $635,000 ($550,000 from the hospital and $85,000 from the doctor).

Other Information

Four mediations were held with different mediators. According to plaintiff, Roe Doctor's demurrer and motion for summary judgment were denied.