Virginia: Patient Falls – a Lawyer’s Immaculate

Virginia: Patient Falls – a Lawyer’s Immaculate

On May 19, 2015, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was heard in Mr. Waterman’s medical malpractice lawsuit in North v. Mary Immaculate Hosp., Inc., No. CL1202507T-01(F-15) in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia. North alleges that Plaintiff’s deceased patient suffered wrongful death as a proximate result of in-patient fall suffered at the hands of Defendant hospital.

At hearing, the Court in the North medical malpractice case granted in part and denied in part.

  1. All Objections of Defendant, Mary Immaculate Hospital, Inc. (“MIH”), to Interrogatories and Requests for Production to which MIH has filed a verified Answer or Response are overruled;
  2. Interrogatory 15 and corresponding Request for Production 35 already are fully answered as to the particulars raised by Plaintiff;
  3. Interrogatory 16 and corresponding Request for Production 16 are resolved by A, supra.
  4. Interrogatory 17 and corresponding Request for Production 37 involve hospital policies, procedures, and protocols which are discoverable not privileged under Va. Code §8.01-581.17; and within 30 days of hearing, or by June 18, 2015, MIH shall produce to Plaintiff all policies, procedures, and protocols which are on page 1 of its 5/12/15 Amended and Supplemental Privilege Log, without the Protective Order requested by MIH.
  5. Interrogatory 18 and corresponding Request for Production 38 involve JCAHO accreditation materials which MIH claims are privileged under Va. Code §8.01-581.17 (I); whereby MIH shall have 30 days from hearing, or until June 18, 2015, to submit to the Court a legal memorandum whether JCAHO is an organization covered by §8.01-581.17(I) and the JCAHO materials which are on page 2 of its 5/12/15 Amended and Supplemental Privilege Log for in camera review by the Court; Plaintiff then shall have 30 days within which to file a legal memorandum in opposition; and thereafter by letter opinion the Court shall notify the parties whether MIH’s JCAHO materials at issue are privileged or discoverable;
  6. Interrogatory 19 and corresponding Request for Production 39 are resolved by A, supra; and
  7. Interrogatory 20 and corresponding Request for Production 40 already are answered sufficiently in the particulars raised by Plaintiff, except that within 30 days of hearing, or by June 18, 2015, MIH shall produce to Plaintiff all responsive employee educational/ personnel records without the Protective Order requested by MIH, but MIH can obfuscate personal information of its nurses, e.g., their social security numbers; and it is:

Mr. Waterman currently is handling multiple in-patient fall cases against healthcare providers across Hampton Roads, including at least 3 others allegedly resulting in wrongful death.

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.