1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | P1 reported arriving at the facility and observing C1 sitting calmly with S1 but unwilling to bear weight on the left leg. P1 immediately sought medical evaluation for C1. Initial X-rays did not identify a fracture; however, the medical provider suspected an occult fracture. C1 was evaluated by pediatric orthopedics the following day, at which time additional X-rays confirmed a fracture. P1 reported the medical provider described the injury as a "toddler fracture" and stated that the injury was consistent with the reported mechanism of C1's landing. C1 was placed in a cast and cast shoe and provided activity restrictions.
During the investigation, LPA observed the climbing blocks to consist of six platforms of varying heights (two 4-inch, two 8-inch, and two 16-inch platforms) and two balancing beams, consistent with the product description provided by Community Playthings. LPA also measured the distance from the top of the climbing blocks to the ground and found the distance to be consistent with the height description. Per the manufacturer's product information provided to LPA, the recommended age range for the climbing blocks is 24 to 36 months. C1 was 22 months old at the time of the incident. LPA observed the climbing blocks to be sturdy with no visible damage. LPA also observed the mat to be sturdy and attempted to move the mat using LPA's foot; the mat did not move. Interviews did not identify any previous injuries or concerns involving the climbing blocks.
RP reported the climbing equipment was inspected following the incident and no defects or instability were identified. As a precautionary measure, RP removed the climbing blocks from the area following the incident. P1 confirmed the climbing blocks have been removed and reported no prior concerns regarding the equipment, C1's supervision, or staff's response to the incident.
The investigation identified a discrepancy regarding the date of the incident. The UIR identified the incident date as 08/06/2026. During interview, P1 reported the incident occurred on 08/05/2026 at approximately 4:00 p.m., C1 was initially evaluated at urgent care on 08/05/2026, and the fracture was confirmed following an orthopedic evaluation on 08/06/2026.
Based on interviews conducted, documentation reviewed, and observations made by LPA, the information obtained indicates that C1's injury occurred while C1 was engaged in a supervised climbing/jumping activity. S1 was in close proximity to C1 and observed the incident. No evidence was obtained indicating a lack of supervision or that a defect or instability of the equipment or mat contributed to the injury. Although the manufacturer's information identified a recommended age range beginning at 24 months and C1 was 22
|