Citrus County, Florida – A Florida jury has awarded $25 million to a 67-year-old woman, ruling that a hospital failed to prevent her sexual assault by a nurse entrusted with her care. The nurse, Hiram Bonilla, previously convicted of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation, perpetrated the attack at Citrus Memorial Hospital, operated by Hospital Corporation of America.
The legal proceedings highlighted the troubling circumstances of the assault where Bonilla obscured the view into the patient’s room, administered morphine, and assaulted her over several hours. The patient, identified only as Jane Doe in court documents, sued the hospital alleging negligence in staff supervision, security, and patient care.
Although the jury found against the hospital on issues of negligence directly causing Jane Doe’s injuries, they nonetheless recognized the severity of the harm she suffered by issuing the substantial award. The damages allocated include $5 million for past and $20 million for future pain and suffering, as the assault severely impacted her mental and physical well-being.
Rosen Injury Law, alongside the Kennedy Law Group, represented the victim. Attorney Eric Rosen emphasized the basic rights of patients to safety and security in healthcare settings, stating, “A patient’s right to be free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation is fundamental. The hospital’s role includes instituting robust security measures that protect patients, even from their employees.”
In response to the verdict, defense attorneys from La Cava Jacobson Goodis, representing the hospital, expressed their sympathy for Doe but disagreed with the allegations leveled against their client, hinting at the possibility of an appeal. The hospital’s legal team remarked on their cooperation with law enforcement to secure Bonilla’s conviction and emphasized their considerations for next steps following the jury’s decision.
This case has stirred discussions among legal and healthcare professionals about the necessary precautions hospitals must take to ensure the safety of vulnerable patients. An initial failure by the hospital staff to believe Doe’s account and delayed police notification raised critical questions about protocol adherence and staff training in emergency and criminal situations, which were significant aspects of the trial.
“This event could have been prevented with better oversight and faster response,” Rosen claimed, highlighting some of the allegations that Doe was not immediately believed and that evidence might have been compromised. Reportedly, the hospital called in their risk management team before contacting police, a move scrutinized during the trial as potentially prioritizing institutional protection over victim care.
Moreover, the case shines a light on prior issues at the facility. Evidence presented in court suggested another assault occurred months before Doe’s attack, raising concerns about the hospital’s commitment to implementing preventive measures against such crimes on its premises.
This significant verdict, therefore, not only underscores the necessity for rigorous safety protocols in healthcare facilities but also serves as a reminder of the legal obligations institutions have towards the individuals in their care, signaling a strong message to other facilities nationwide about the ramifications of neglecting these duties.