Common Defenses in Bedsore Malpractice Cases and How Lawyers Counter Them

Bedsore malpractice cases are complicated because healthcare facilities often have a range of defenses to protect themselves. These defenses can make it harder for patients or families to show that negligence actually occurred. Common arguments include claims that the sores were unavoidable, that pre-existing conditions caused the injury, or that proper care was already provided.

Lawyers handle these cases by gathering detailed evidence, consulting medical experts, and reviewing care records to challenge each defense. Knowing what defenses might come up helps show how attorneys build a strong case for their clients.

In this blog, we’ll cover most common defenses used in bedsore malpractice cases and explain how lawyers counter them.

Bedsores Are Unavoidable

One of the most common defenses in bedsore cases is the claim that bedsores sometimes happen even with proper care. Facilities may argue that certain patients are at high risk due to age, limited mobility, or other health conditions, and that injuries like pressure ulcers cannot always be prevented.

Lawyers counter this by showing evidence that many bedsores are preventable when proper care protocols are followed. This includes documented schedules for repositioning patients, routine skin checks, and using pressure-relieving mattresses or cushions. Medical experts often testify that if standard care measures had been properly implemented, the severity of the sores—or their development entirely—could have been avoided.

Even small lapses, such as missed repositioning or inadequate wound monitoring, can show negligence. Lawyers also compare the facility’s actions against accepted medical guidelines and research studies to demonstrate that the sores were not an unavoidable consequence of the patient’s condition. By providing this kind of evidence, attorneys can show that the facility failed to meet the standard of care and that the injury could have been prevented.

Pre-Existing Conditions Caused the Bedsores

Facilities sometimes argue that a patient’s underlying health problems, such as diabetes, poor circulation, or immobility, were the main reason for bedsores. The defense claims that the sores were inevitable due to these conditions rather than negligence.

A bedsore attorney counters this by separating the effects of pre-existing conditions from the care provided. Medical records are carefully examined to track when and how the sores developed. Experts can testify that while certain conditions increase risk, proper care—including regular repositioning, skin monitoring, and timely treatment—can prevent bedsores even in high-risk patients.

By showing that the facility did not follow these standard measures, lawyers can make a strong case that negligence, rather than the patient’s health problems, was the real cause of the injury. Photographs, wound assessments, and documented care logs often help make this distinction clear. Even if the patient had health issues, the law requires facilities to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries, and failure to do so can form the basis of a successful claim.

Family or Patient Contributed to the Injury

Another defense facilities may use is that the patient or their family failed to follow care instructions, which contributed to the bedsores. They may claim that if the family had reported changes in skin condition or followed guidance, the injury might have been prevented.

Lawyers counter this by emphasizing that the primary responsibility for care rests with the facility. Even if a family member misses a step or a patient is unable to follow instructions, the staff is legally required to provide proper care. Attorneys document how the facility had a duty to monitor the patient’s condition consistently and intervene when needed.

Evidence such as nursing logs, staffing schedules, and expert testimony shows that bedsores developed because care protocols were ignored or inadequately followed. Even in cases where families tried to help, the facility cannot shift the blame if it failed to meet its basic obligations. This defense often falls apart when lawyers demonstrate that the patient received substandard care despite the family’s efforts.

Proper Documentation Shows Care Was Given

Facilities sometimes argue that their care records prove all proper procedures were followed. They may present nursing logs, medication charts, or shift reports to claim that repositioning, hygiene, and monitoring were completed as required.

Lawyers counter this by reviewing records carefully to find inconsistencies, missing entries, or discrepancies between what was documented and what actually happened. Witness statements from staff, family members, or other patients can highlight moments when care was skipped or delayed. Expert testimony can also show whether documented procedures meet accepted care standards or if they fall short.

Even thorough-looking documentation can be misleading if it does not match actual care practices. Lawyers use these gaps to demonstrate that the facility’s records cannot be taken at face value and that negligence occurred despite what the logs claim. The combination of records, testimony, and expert analysis often provides a clear picture of how the patient’s bedsores developed due to preventable lapses in care.

Staff Shortages or Resource Limitations

Some care facilities argue that bedsores occurred because there simply weren’t enough staff, or the workload was too heavy and equipment too limited. They’ll say that with so many patients and so few resources, maintaining ideal care is unrealistic.

Lawyers counter this by pointing out that standards exist because such challenges shouldn’t prevent proper care. Evidence like staffing rosters, training records, and equipment inventories show whether the facility planned for safe care or left it to chance. 

For example, a study found a direct association between lower nurse staffing levels and higher rates of pressure ulcers—showing that understaffing isn’t just an excuse but a measurable risk factor. 

By demonstrating that the facility had policies in place (or should have), yet failed to meet them, lawyers show the injury was preventable. 

So the argument “we were short‑staffed” doesn’t absolve responsibility when accepted protocols were not followed. This defense often falls apart when a clear timeline of missed care is presented alongside evidence of what the facility should have done under its own guidelines.

Conclusion

Bedsore malpractice cases often come with defenses like unavoidable injuries, pre-existing conditions, or staff shortages. These excuses don’t remove a facility’s responsibility to provide proper care.

Lawyers counter these defenses with evidence, expert testimony, and care records, showing where procedures like repositioning, wound care, and monitoring were missed. Even common challenges, such as limited staff or patient health issues, do not excuse neglect.

A strong case clearly links lapses in care to the injury, holding the facility accountable and helping patients secure compensation.