The one-year Statute of Limitations in California's MICRA regime bars untimely claim against driver of ambulance who rear-ended third-party motorist while transporting another patient
Plaintiff Gutierrez was driving on the I-280 when he was rear-ended by an ambulance driven by defendant Tostado. The driver and ambulance operator brought a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations found in California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). This statute was passed by the voters in 1975 and limits the amounts recoverable due to alleged negligence in providing medical services.
The Hon. Christopher J. Rudy of the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted the motion. On appeal, the Sixth Appellate District upheld the grant of summary judgment over the dissent of one Justice. (Gutierrez v. Tostado (December 1, 2023) H049983.)
Upon appeal, the issue was whether the one-year MICRA statute of limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, as opposed to the general two-year statute of limitations for tort actions, applied. In other words, did MICRA's provisions apply where the negligence of medical providers was directed at a non-patient such as fellow motorist Gutierrez, who just happened to be driving in front of defendants' ambulance?
Justice Greenwood, joined by Justice Grover, wrote for the majority and found that because Tostado was driving the ambulance he was providing "professional [medical] services" at the time of the accident. Therefore, the time limitations found in MICRA applied. This is important because under case law such as Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 75, at 88, only actions “alleging injury suffered as a result of . . . the provision of medical care to patients” are subject to MICRA. (Gutierrez, p. 3; italics added.)
The majority answered this question affirmatively and cited to Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 388, at 407, where the MICRA one-year limit applied to injury to someone injured while riding in an ambulance who was not a patient. As Gutierrez explained at pages five to six, the MICRA time limit applied to someone not receiving medical service but who was nonetheless still injured as a result of negligence in providing such services:
In Canister, a police officer accompanying an arrestee in the back of an ambulance was injured when the ambulance hit a curb. At the time of the accident, the ambulance was being driven by one EMT while another attended to the arrestee in the rear of the ambulance. The officer sued for negligence. (Canister, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 392.) After finding that an EMT was a health care provider and that transporting a patient constituted professional services within the meaning of MICRA, the Canister court held that MICRA extends to “ ‘any foreseeable injured party, including patients, business invitees, staff members or visitors, provided the injuries alleged arose out of professional negligence.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 407-408.) The court concluded that it was foreseeable as a matter of law that a police officer accompanying an arrestee in an ambulance might be injured in the operation of the ambulance. (Id. at p. 408.)
Justice Bromberg dissented and wrote that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants could have anticipated that MICRA would apply in this situation, i.e., "a run-of-the-mill traffic accident involving an ambulance that happened to be transporting a patient on a non-emergency matter, presumably with its siren off." (Gutierrez dissent, p. 2.) The dissent also noted the plaintiff's lawyers were unlikely to know that MICRA applied to his claim because in 1982 the MICRA provisions specifically related to paramedics were removed. (Gutierrez dissent, p. 4.) Moreover, at the time MICRA was enacted the general statute of limitations for tort claims was one-year, meaning MICRA was not intended to shorten the time to bring claims. Rather, its purpose was to reduce the amount of monetary awards for medical malpractice to prevent a reduction in affordable and available medical care to the public.
Further review of Gutierrez
This case may ultimately be headed to the California Supreme Court, given that the case law cited by the majority and dissent lacks harmony as to when MICRA does or does not apply.
It should also be noted that earlier this year MICRA was amended by the California legislature. The original $250,000 "cap" on claims for professional medical negligence was increased. Wrongful death claims from medical malpractice are now "capped" at $500,000 and this amount will increase by $50,000 each January until the maximum is $1,000,000. For other claims, the "cap" is $350,000, with yearly increases of $40,000 until the new limit reaches $750,000.
Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment