dr. richardson's reliance on murillo v. good samaritan hospital (1979) 99 cal.app.3d 50, is misplaced. there, the court held the alleged negligence----a hospital's failure to keep guard rails up on a patient's bed----was ""professional negligence"" within the meaning of code of civil procedure section 340.5, which sets forth the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions. the court broadly stated ""the test is whether the negligent act occurred in the rendering of services for which the health care provider is licensed."" (id. at p. 57; see also bellamy v. appellate department (1996) 50 cal.app.4th 797, 808.) the hospital, however, had a duty to assess whether the patient's condition required keeping the rails up. here, there is no evidence that rossa's medical condition or treatment was relevant to her handling on the treadmill. moreover, our high court has cautioned that murillo v. good samaritan hospital, supra, 99 cal.app.3d 50 is not relevant when, as here, a statutory distinction between ordinary and professional is not at issue. (flowers v. torrance memorial hospital medical center (1994) 8 cal.4th 992, 998--999, 1002, fn. 6.) [fn2]