The Provincial Court of Madrid, with a ruling dated July 1st, recognizes the responsibility of a hospital for not having adopted control, surveillance and prevention measures and prevent suicide a patient who took advantage of an oversight to throw herself out of a warehouse window. For Justice, the hospital center should have taken extreme precautions, taking into account the patient’s autolytic ideas, which were known to the center staff.
The plaintiffs brought a direct action against the insurer of the hospital in whose dementia ward their mother was involuntarily admitted to seek compensation for damages resulting from her death as a result of serious injuries suffered after falling from a room intended for storage.
The Court of First Instance essentially accepted the request and ordered the defendant company to compensate them 52,155.76 euros in the case of the daughter and with 21,110.66 in that of the son, plus the interests of the art. 20 LCS from the date of summons to the defendant.
The appellants appeal against the lawyer’s rejection the compensation requested for personal injuries due to the death of the sole parentas well as in relation to the start date of the interest calculation referred to in the art. 20 LCS. For its part, the insurer opposes the appeal and challenges the sentence, a complaint which is not formulated separately and independently from the reasons for opposition, from which its non-compliance with the declaration of liability of the insured hospital, with the compensation estimated and with the ruling with which the aforementioned interests are imposed.
The Provincial Court substantially accepts the appellant’s appeal and rejects the defendant’s appeal, revoking the lower level sentence, in the sense ofand increase the quantum with the item referring to the particular personal injury due to the death of a single parent and to change the interest accrual date.
This shows that it is an indisputable fact that the plaintiff’s mother had a diagnosis Cotard delirium, parkinsonism and probable dementia with Levy bodies, In the early morning of September 27, 2019, he left his room, went through the nursing check when no one was there and entered the room used as a storage room, accessing the window which, either it was viable when it shouldn’t have been, or it was left open, falling down, suffering serious injuries and multiple fractures following the fall which led to his death a few days later. He adds that it is clear that the patient’s suicidal ideation appeared in her medical history and in various medical reports, so the harmful outcome cannot be considered unpredictable in any way.
Bad practice
The Chamber confirms the expert and testimonial evaluation carried out by the judge a quo and the factual conclusions reached in relation to the estimate of negligence, from which the liability of the center and, therefore, of the insurer cited derives.
He points out that the damage was caused by the lack of surveillance, control and prevention measures by the hospital’s dementia department, leaving the nursing station without assistance for an hour, as well as by the reckless behavior of those who left the door opened the closet, with a window through which the patient fell and which was accessible when it should not have been, or left open.
It therefore concludes that the minimum control and safety measures that must be observed were not respected given the characteristics of the patients admitted to said department (mentally ill).
Then, as regards the amount of compensation, contrary to the insurer’s criteria, the amount granted to the daughter of the deceased as a result of cohabitation with the victim is ratified. In this sense, this indicates that the co-plaintiff appears in hospital records as her mother’s live-in partner and caregiver, and that her mother was never admitted to a nursing home, but rather to the hospital’s dementia ward involuntarily.
The Court then accepts the ground of appeal against the sentence which denies compensation for the particular damage resulting from the death of the sole parent. Appreciate error in evaluating the evidence in this regard, since it believes that, from the documentation in the documents, consisting of the authentic copy of the family book, it appears that the deceased was married, from 25 October 1974, to her deceased husband, who died in August 2001, and that the appellants were born during their marriage, recognizing each person the sum of 5,174.18 euros.
with regards to the interests referred to in art. 20 LCS, the Court confirms the admissibility of its imposition on the insurer, as there is no reason to justify its exemption, given that the discrepancies relating to the contributory fault or the amount of adequate compensation do not constitute a justified reason to remedy the taxation of interest, nor is the lack of insurance coverage denied, nor is there any situation of uncertainty or rational doubt.
As regards its accrual, although the insurer claims not to have been aware of the incident until the claim was filed, and since it is clear that the preliminary investigation procedures have been carried out, it believes that the interest must be calculated from the moment of the claim these procedures have been agreed.
Interviewer: Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re discussing a recent ruling by the Provincial Court of Madrid that raises serious questions about hospital safety and the care of at-risk patients. Joining us is Dr. Laura Medina, a renowned expert in psychiatric care and hospital safety protocols. Thank you for being here, Dr. Medina.
Dr. Medina: Thank you for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss such an important issue.
Interviewer: The court’s ruling highlights significant failures in a hospital’s duty of care to a patient who ultimately took her life. Can you walk us through the critical aspects of this case that led to the court’s decision?
Dr. Medina: Absolutely. The ruling emphasized two major failures by the hospital: a lack of adequate surveillance and prevention measures, and a breach of established protocols for patients with known suicidal ideation. The patient, in this case, had previously exhibited thoughts of self-harm, which should have triggered strict safety measures.
Interviewer: It’s alarming that the nursing station was reportedly left unattended. What should proper safety protocols have looked like in this situation?
Dr. Medina: In a dementia ward, especially with patients who have known mental health issues, constant supervision is critical. Staff should be present in the nursing stations to monitor patients, and access to windows and other potential hazards should be strictly controlled. If a patient is identified as being at risk for suicide, additional measures like room checks and physical barriers should be implemented.
Interviewer: The court also concluded that the patient’s fall from a storage room window was a foreseeable event. Why is this an important consideration in such cases?
Dr. Medina: It’s crucial because it establishes liability. The court’s decision indicates that the hospital had knowledge of the patient’s suicidal ideation, which makes the tragic outcome predictable. When a healthcare facility is aware of a patient’s mental state, it is their ethical and legal obligation to prevent harm. By failing to do so, they have not only breached their duty of care but also exposed themselves to liability.
Interviewer: The plaintiffs sought compensation for their mother’s death, and the court adjusted the compensation amount in favor of the family. What does this say about accountability in healthcare?
Dr. Medina: This ruling sends a strong message that hospitals must be held accountable for their actions—or lack thereof. It reinforces the notion that healthcare providers are responsible not only for medical treatment but also for ensuring a safe environment for all patients, particularly those at risk. Compensation in cases like this serves as a form of justice for the families affected and can encourage systemic changes to improve patient safety.
Interviewer: Speaking of systemic changes, what recommendations would you make to prevent such tragedies in the future?
Dr. Medina: There are several steps that can be taken. Training staff to recognize the signs of suicidal ideation is essential. Additionally, implementing strict safety protocols that limit patients’ access to potentially dangerous areas is vital. Regular audits of hospital protocols and emergency response drills can also help ensure that all staff are prepared to act swiftly in high-risk situations.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Medina. This conversation sheds light on the critical need for vigilance in mental health care. As we’ve seen in this case, lives depend on it.
Dr. Medina: Exactly. Continuous training, proper oversight, and a culture that prioritizes patient safety can truly make a difference. Thank you for bringing attention to this critical issue.
Interviewer: Thank you once again for your insights. This has been a thought-provoking discussion, and we look forward to more conversations on improving patient care and safety in the future.