Ambulance Crash Was Not Health Care Liability Claim: The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals (“Texas Appellate Court”) held in its August 31, 2022 Memorandum Opinion in a case where an ambulance company contended that the claims brought against it and its driver for injuries sustained during a collision between its ambulance and another driver are health care and thus are subject to the expert-report requirement of section 74.351(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, “Because we conclude that appellee Zaida Soto Toca’s claims against appellants are not health care liability claims and are not subject to the expert report requirement of section 74.351(a), we affirm.”
On February 15, 2020, Spencer Canter, an Emergency Medical Technician, was transporting a patient in an AMR ambulance. On the way to the hospital, Canter tried to pass a line of cars but rear ended Zaida Soto Toca’s vehicle, which was stopped at a stoplight. Toca sued both Canter and the insurance company for the injuries Toca suffered as a result of the collision.
The Texas Appellate Court stated that the issue it had to decide was whether Toca’s claims for negligence, negligence per se and vicarious liability regarding the collision with appellants’ ambulance constitutes a health care liability claim as defined in Chapter 74.
A health care liability claim is defined as: “a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.001(a)(13).
The Texas Appellate Court stated, “In the instant case, appellants characterize Toca’s claims as alleged violations of safety standards or safety standards-based claims. “Safety” is not defined in Chapter 74; however, the Texas Supreme Court has construed “safety” according to its common meaning as “the condition of being untouched by danger; not exposed to danger; secure from danger, harm or loss” … a safety-standard claim need not be directly related to the provision of health care to qualify as a health care liability claim; however, “there must be a substantive nexus between the safety standards allegedly violated and the provision of health care.””
The Texas Supreme Court considers the following non-exclusive factors in determining whether a substantive nexus exists between the safety standards allegedly violated and the provision of health care:
1. Did the alleged negligence of the defendant occur in the course of the defendant performing tasks with the purpose of protecting patients from harm;
2. Did the injuries occur in a place where patients might be during the time they were receiving care, so that the obligation of the provider to protect persons who require special, medical care was implicated;
3. At the time of the injury was the claimant in the process of seeking or receiving health care;
4. At the time of the injury, was the claimant providing or assisting in providing health care;
5. Is the alleged negligence based on safety standards arising from professional duties owed by the health care provider;
6. If an instrumentality was involved in the defendant’s alleged negligence, was it a type used in providing health care; or
7. Did the alleged negligence occur in the course of the defendant’s taking action or failing to take action necessary to comply with safety-related requirements set for health care providers by governmental or accrediting agencies?
The pivotal issue in a safety standards-based claim is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.
In the case it was deciding, the Texas Appellate Court stated: “we find that many of the factors do not weigh in favor of concluding that Toca’s claims against appellants constitute health care liability claims. In particular, Toca’s alleged injuries occurred outside the ambulance and not in a place where Toca was receiving care … Additionally, the allegations demonstrate that Toca was merely a driver on the road; Toca was not the patient; nor did Toca receive health care from appellants or provide or assist in the provision of health care by appellant … Here, Toca never received any medical treatment in the ambulance. Under these circumstances, the ambulance was not an instrumentality used in the provision of health care to Toca, a nonpatient.”
“[W]e note that the “essence of the cause of action” is one of ordinary negligence and is not a health care liability claim … the legal duties allegedly violated in this case apply to every driver on the road and are not unique to a health care provider driving an ambulance … Therefore, we cannot say that appellants have met their burden in showing a substantive nexus between the safety standards allegedly violated and the provision of health care … As such, we conclude that: (1) Toca’s claims are not health care liability claims; (2) Chapter 74’s expert report requirement does not apply to Toca’s claims; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying appellants’ Chapter 74 motion to dismiss.”
Source Canter, et al. v. Toca, No. 10-22-00166-CV.
If you or a family member suffered serious injury or other harm that may be due to medical malpractice in Texas or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Texas medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your family member in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.