plaintiff argues, essentially routine care, ministerial and not technical. It is well within the applicable rule requiring ‘such reasonable care as the patient’s known (or should be known) condition may require or demand.’ Here the evidence showed a patient relatively immobile, previously supplied with a bedpan, and under sedative medication. No special skill is required to supply a bedpan when needed; no special expertise is required to foresee the possibility of a fall resulting from the patient’s attempt to supply the deficiency in care.” 133 Vt. at 574, 349 A.2d at 892 (citations omitted) (quoting Kastler v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 193 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1971), and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283 (1965)). See also Veesart v. Community Hosp. Ass’n, 211 Kan. 896, 508 P.2d 506 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Rewis v. Grand Strand Gen. Hosp., 290 S.C.
holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim holding that the hospitals failure to provide patient with a hospital bed with side rails brought the case under  1010212 holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding that a patient who broke his leg in a fall while going from his hospital bed to the bathroom was not required to present expert testimony regarding the standard of care