A hospital bed rolls as a patient tries to reach a bedside commode. Was the problem an unlocked wheel, a clinical decision to let the patient get up without help, or both? In Louisiana, that distinction can determine whether the claim goes first to a medical review panel or directly to court.
A fall inside a hospital is not automatically medical malpractice. Courts examine the conduct alleged to have caused it. Assessing a patient’s ability to walk can require professional judgment; maintaining a chair or locking a bed wheel may not. One incident can support different claims with different procedures and deadlines.
One fall, separate allegations: the Blevins decision
In Blevins v. Hamilton Medical Center, Inc., 959 So. 2d 440 (La. 2007), the patient alleged both inadequate monitoring and problems with a bed that rolled during his move to a commode. The district court separated the patient-care claims from three allegations concerning the bed’s condition, position and locked wheels, and operating instructions.
The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the ruling that allowed those three ordinary-negligence allegations to proceed. As pleaded, they concerned routine bed safety rather than medical treatment. The other patient-care allegations remained subject to the malpractice process. The decision did not classify every hospital fall, or even every allegation from that fall, the same way.
When patient care changes the analysis
A fall-risk assessment after surgery, the effect of medication, or a decision about how much walking assistance a confused patient needs may involve medical judgment. A claim about an ignored care plan or inadequate clinical monitoring therefore needs a different analysis from a visitor’s fall on an unrelated hallway spill.
The distinction is not always obvious from the equipment involved. A bed, alarm, wheelchair, or handrail may figure in either kind of claim. The question is which duty the hospital allegedly breached and whether evaluating that duty requires an assessment of the patient’s condition.
Courts use six considerations known as the Coleman factors, also discussed in Blevins:
- Whether the alleged wrong concerned treatment or professional skill.
- Whether expert medical evidence is needed to assess the standard of care.
- Whether the conduct involved assessing the patient’s condition.
- Whether it occurred within a physician-patient relationship or activities for which a hospital is licensed.
- Whether the injury would have happened without the patient seeking treatment.
- Whether the alleged conduct was intentional.
These considerations are not a mechanical scorecard. A simple-looking task can involve clinical judgment when weakness, confusion, anesthesia, or a known fall risk affects how it should be performed. Conversely, being in a hospital does not turn routine maintenance into medical care.
Nor does a fall alone prove fault. The claim still needs evidence of a breached duty, resulting injury, and the connection between them. Our explanation of Louisiana medical-error lawsuits addresses the proof required when the disputed conduct involves professional care.
The procedural choice can affect the deadline
A malpractice claim against a qualified private health care provider generally must go through a medical review panel before suit, under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1231.8. An ordinary-negligence claim generally proceeds directly in court. Our Baton Rouge medical malpractice practice evaluates the provider’s status, clinical records, and panel requirements when investigating patient-care claims.
For medical malpractice, Revised Statute 9:5628 generally provides one year from the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or one year from discovery when the problem could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. It also sets a three-year outside limit from the alleged conduct. A qualifying panel filing can affect prescription, the legal time limit, but its filing requirements matter.
For ordinary injury claims covered by Act 423 of 2024, which took effect July 1, 2024 and applies prospectively, Civil Code article 3493.1 generally allows two years from the injury or damage. Earlier events, malpractice, governmental defendants, and other special circumstances may follow different rules.
Do not apply the longer ordinary-negligence period to every allegation in a mixed case. A dispute over classification, or the hospital’s own investigation, does not by itself protect a filing deadline. The medical and nonmedical allegations may need attention on separate tracks.
Preserve the room conditions and the care record
The physical scene may change quickly. Photographs of the floor, bed, wheels, wheelchair, footwear, and visible defects can help establish what was there when the fall happened. Record who saw the fall, which staff members responded, and any incident-report number. Ask promptly about preserving surveillance footage before it is overwritten. The evidence needed for a slip-and-fall lawsuit includes witnesses and condition evidence that may also matter here.
The care record answers a different set of questions: What fall risk had staff identified? What assistance did the orders or care plan require? What medication had been given? Nursing notes, assessments, orders, alarm records, and medication records can help distinguish a clinical decision from an equipment or maintenance problem. Records of the injuries and additional treatment are also important.
A hospital may not voluntarily release every internal document. A properly directed preservation request can help identify records and footage that need to be retained while the claim is investigated.
To discuss a hospital fall with Babcock Injury Lawyers, call 225-500-5000 in Baton Rouge or 318-777-5000 in Ruston.
Editorial & Legal Accuracy Notice (Louisiana)
Sources checked: September 29, 2026.
This article provides general information about Louisiana law, not legal advice for a particular fall. Classification depends on the specific act or omission alleged, the patient’s condition, the provider’s status, and when the injury occurred. Deadlines can run while the parties dispute whether a claim is medical malpractice.