A hospital nurse who slipped and injured herself on a wet spot in a scrub room can pursue her negligence claim against the health care support company she alleged was responsible for supervising the maintenance and cleaning of the room, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.

A unanimous three-judge panel issued a Dec. 5 memorandum finding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the worker tasked with cleaning the room was a borrowed servant of the support company at the time of the injury, precluding the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the company's favor.

Valerie Hodge suffered disabling back and head injuries that rendered her unable to return to work after she slipped on a recently mopped floor in June 2014 while working at Holy Redeemer Hospital, Judge Mary Jane Bowes wrote in the court's opinion. The floor had been mopped by custodian Chuck Varga, who called out to Hodge to watch out for the wet floor as she fell. There was no warning sign on the floor.

Hodge filed a negligence action against Aramark Healthcare, alleging that the company was contractually responsible for the hospital's housekeeping services, including cleaning, mopping and maintaining floors. She claimed Varga was acting under Aramark's supervision at the time of the incident, and that the company failed to train, supervise and monitor the custodians, leading to the dangerous condition.

Aramark asserted that it took adequate care in hiring, training and supervising its employees, and that the nature of the condition was open and obvious. It also argued cleaning and mopping duties were performed by hospital employees and that the hospital retained control over the work performed by its employees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Aramark, finding that Varga was not a “borrowed servant” of Aramark.

On appeal, Hodge argued Varga was a borrowed servant and Aramark was subject to vicarious liability. At the least, she argued, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to who controlled Varga's work.

The hospital's contract with Aramark tasked the support company with “room revitalization,” including regular maintenance of the floors in the area where Hodge fell, Bowes said. Aramark was to provide an on-site manager for the cleaning program to coordinate the activities of the employees within the department. That man, Ken Atkins, testified in his deposition that the right to control the manner of mopping the floors rested with the custodian's supervisor, who in this case was an Aramark employee.

Varga went to Atkins to report the incident, accepted responsibility for not putting up a warning sign, and was disciplined for failing to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner, the opinion said.

Aramark contended its role was that of a consultant making recommendations, conducting reviews and creating a plan, but there was “considerable evidence that Aramark controlled the manner in which custodial services were performed by Mr. Varga,” Bowes said.

“Aramark was charged with the training, scheduling, daily supervision and evaluation of [custodial] employees,” Bowes said. “Aramark had the right to control the manner of the performance of the servant's work, as evidenced by the fact that it regularly inspected and evaluated the custodians. Aramark, not the hospital, disciplined Mr. Varga and required that he be in-serviced in safety procedures.”

Therefore, a reasonable juror could conclude that Aramark controlled the custodians' daily performance of their duties.

“Nurse Hodge has offered sufficient proof that Mr. Varga was acting as Aramark's servant when he negligently failed to place signs warning of the dangerous wet floors to subject that entity to vicarious liability for the negligence of its servant,” Bowes said.

Neither J. Craig Currie of Philadelphia, who represented Hodge, nor Thomas Specht of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin of Scranton, who represented Aramark, returned calls for comment.