Property owners have a legal duty to maintain safe premises for visitors, guests, and residents. When they fail to uphold these safety standards, they can be held liable for any injuries that occur on their property. Hospitals, surgery centers, rehabilitation centers, and other medical offices are not exempt from this burden of responsibility.
Below is a general guide for healthcare premise liability from our health law lawyers. We will explore the legal responsibilities of property owners to ensure your practice is protected from any legal claims.
In California, property owners are legally obligated to maintain safe premises and protect individuals who enter their property. These responsibilities vary depending on the status of the person entering, such as invitees, licensees, and trespassers.
Healthcare facilities, in addition to complying with HIPAA laws, must adhere to key legal responsibilities that apply to all property owners, including:
As a property owner, there are certain circumstances under which you may be held liable for the injuries of a trespasser, even though they entered your property without permission. The key laws to keep in mind include:
There is a gray area between medical malpractice and premise liability negligence. Misdiagnoses or failures to properly treat and care for a patient would be considered medical malpractice. For example, a patient with a high fall risk must be monitored accordingly. If supervision or other necessary treatment is not followed and the patient falls, the facility may be liable for medical malpractice.
However, if the rehabilitation center is required to have adequate handrails or ramps for immobile patients and fails to properly maintain these accommodations, then the facility may be liable for premise liability.
In short, medical malpractice is typically the burden of the physician, nurse, or other medical professional. On the flip side, premise liability is the responsibility of the property owner.
However, as aforementioned there are cases where the distinction between the two types of negligence is unclear. Let’s examine Toledo v. Mercy Hosp. of Buffalo, 994 N.Y.S.2d 298.
Theresa Toledo was admitted to Mercy Hospital for heart surgery and sustained an ankle fracture after slipping on a urine puddle when attempting to walk to the restroom during recovery. Toledo sued the hospital for malpractice claiming she was left unattended despite her fall risk. The hospital argued that the fall happened 5 days after the surgery, thus putting Toledo outside of the “postoperative period” and changing the obligations the medical staff had to her recovery plan at that time. The defendants also argued that the urine puddle would be considered premise liability as a destructive path is not the responsibility of such medical personnel.
Understanding the distinction between medical malpractice and premise liability is of the utmost importance. The statute of limitations and filing requirements vary depending on the type of claim. If a plaintiff incorrectly assumes their injury is premise liability when in actuality it is malpractice, then the hospital can properly defend itself and be acquitted of wrongdoing.
Picture this: A drug and alcohol treatment facility has a large, open outdoor area where patients can walk and exercise. However, the facility is located near a residential neighborhood, and the outdoor area has not been properly secured. There are no fences or barriers to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering.
A local 13-year-old teenager, curious about the facility, enters the premises without permission for the first time. While wandering around, they find an open maintenance shed containing hazardous materials and tools. The teenager sustains injuries after accidentally cutting themselves on a sharp tool left out in the open.
Here is the big question: Can the teenager legally sue the mental health facility for their injuries despite having trespassed on the property?
In the example above, the 13-year-old teenager can, in fact, take legal action against the property owner. Since the teenager is under the age of 18, they are considered a minor. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, they may be viewed more like an invitee rather than a trespasser. This is significant because it changes the legal responsibilities of the property owner.
The attractive nuisance doctrine recognizes that children, due to their age and lack of understanding of danger, may be drawn to hazardous conditions. In this case, the unsecured maintenance shed containing sharp tools could be deemed an attractive nuisance that lured the teenager onto the premises.
As a result, the teenager may have grounds to sue the addiction treatment facility for their injuries. The facility could be held liable for not securing the area properly and for failing to take reasonable measures to prevent access to dangerous conditions that could attract minors.
Fenton Jurkowitz Law Group has a team of seasoned healthcare practice attorneys who are well-versed in California premises liability law. It is important to have legal counsel on your side when filing a report to ensure you and your healthcare practice are protected. Fill out our contact form on our website today to connect with a healthcare law lawyer.