13 Nov Virginia: Patient Fall – a Lawyer’s Amendment
By letter opinion on October 30, 2015, more than 7 years after the underlying medical malpractice alleged, Hampton Circuit Court granted Mr. Waterman’s second Motion for Leave to Amend in the brain injury case of Eason v. Sentara CarePlex Hospital, et al., No. CL12-470, 2015 Va. Cir. LEXIS 168, 2015 WL 6870239. Plaintiff sought to change allegations of fact and of negligence, i.e., breaches of the standard of care.
In Eason, Plaintiff’s patient fell in Defendant hospital on September 4, 2008; suit was filed September 3, 2010; nonsuit without service of process was taken August 26, 2011; suit was refiled February 24, 2012; the refiled Complaint was amended initially January 15, 2013; the Amended Complaint was served February 20, 2013; and second Motion for Leave to Amend was filed August 19, 2015. Harmonizing Va. S. Ct. Rule 1:8 (providing “leave to amend shall be liberally granted in furtherance of the ends of justice”) and Va. Code §8.01-6.1 (mandating “relation back” of amendment under tripartite standard), the Judge opined: “I find that neither the facts of these pleadings nor the procedural chronology prohibit the desired Amendment.”
In Eason, Plaintiff’s patient was a known high fall risk, yet apparently was not provided inter alia a “low” bed, a bed alarm and/or the necessary monitoring and toileting; was “found … on floor next to bed in [pool of] urine/stool [having] climbed over side rails attempting to get to the bathroom”; and thereby suffered permanent brain injury that totally incapacitated her unto death 4 years later. Plaintiff seeks $10,350,000.00 in damages.
THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR REQUIRES ALL LAWYERS TO POST THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMERS ON ALL CASE-RELATED POSTS. MR. WATERMAN’S CASE RESULTS AND CLIENT TESTIMONIALS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THEY DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE BY HIM.