Virginia: Patient Falls – a Lawyer’s Surveillance

Virginia: Patient Falls – a Lawyer’s Surveillance

On November 23, 2015, Newport News Circuit Court drafted and entered its own hearing Order in the medical malpractice case of Nancy Peck v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., Riverside Healthcare Association, Inc., Sunny Freeman, R.N., Mallory Campbell, R.N., and Virginia Dilday, No. CL1400873V-04. It denied the second Motion for Sanctions of Defendants, Riverside Hospital, Inc. and Riverside Healthcare Association, adopting Plaintiff’s arguments as its reasoning; granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, except for Interrogatory/Request 27, which Plaintiff was allowed to reformulate; and granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend after the statute of limitations already had run. Id. at 1.

In addition to compelling responses to various written discovery requests by all Defendants, the Court in Peck ordered Defendant, Nurse Mallory Rusk, to be deposed in Newport News, Virginia. That party had relocated to South Carolina after her alleged medical malpractice and was insisting on Plaintiff traveling there to depose her. Id.

Notably in the Peck patient fall case, Defendants “stipulated to the discoverability of surveillance materials.” Id. Re Plaintiff being permitted to file her Third Amended Complaint, the Court was “satisfied that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for punitive damages,” id.; and observed that the amendment still was subject to the ruling in its prior letter opinion. Id. at 2.

In the Peck medical malpractice suit, the high fall risk post-operative orthopedic patient fell and was injured permanently when her Riverside nurse inappropriately advised that she was fine to ambulate to the bathroom herself – despite her walker having been placed on the opposite side of her room by her nurse – instead of her nurse assisting her to the bathroom as required by Virginia’s nursing standard of care. Plaintiff’s suit prays for $10,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus an additional $350,000.00 in punitive damages for the Defendant’s conduct allegedly being a wide deviation from the prevailing standard of care, at least grossly negligent, and in conscious disregard of the patient’s rights, health, safety and welfare.

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.