California Appellate Court Says Medical Malpractice Statute Of Limitations Applies To Traffic Accident Claim

The Court of Appeal for the State of California Sixth Appellate District (“California Appellate Court”) stated in its December 1, 2023 published opinion: “In this appeal we must decide whether a driver in a separate vehicle, injured in a collision with an ambulance transporting a patient, was injured as a result of the provision of medical care, such that MICRA’s one year statute applies.”

The California Appellate Court held: “even though Tostado may owe a duty to the public to drive the ambulance safely when not in use for medical care, the injury to Gutierrez occurred while Tostado, a medical provider, was performing the integral function of transporting a patient by ambulance. The trial court correctly concluded that MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations applied to Gutierrez’s negligence claims.”

Underlying Facts

Francisco Gutierrez was driving on Interstate 280 when he was forced to stop. Shortly after Gutierrez stopped, Tostado, who was driving an ambulance, rear-ended him. At the time of the accident, Uriel Tostado was an emergency medical technician (EMT) employed by ProTransport-1, LLC and was transporting a patient from one medical facility to another. While Tostado drove, his partner attended to the patient in the rear of the ambulance.

Gutierrez was injured in the collision and visited a chiropractor for treatment within ten days of the incident. Almost two years later, Gutierrez filed a complaint against Tostado and ProTransport-1, alleging various personal injury claims. The respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that Gutierrez’s claims were time barred under MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed that MICRA applied and granted the motion. The trial court concluded that because Tostado was transporting a patient at the time of the accident, he was rendering professional services. The trial court held that Gutierrez’s claims against the defendants were time-barred under the statute.

A personal injury action for negligence must generally be filed within two years of the date on which the injury occurred. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) However, suits against health care providers for professional negligence must be filed within one year. (§ 340.5.) Gutierrez argued that the one-year statute of limitations does not apply to his action because his claims are for general negligence not professional negligence, and the duty that Tostado violated by crashing into his car was a duty of care generally owed to the public, not a professional duty owed by a medical provider to a patient.

Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”)

MICRA defines professional negligence as “a negligent act or omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services.” (§ 340.5, subd. (2).) The parties did not dispute that an EMT transporting a patient in an ambulance is providing medical care to the patient for purposes of the statute.

The California Appellate Court stated in the case it was deciding: “the question here is whether an injury to a third party, who is not a patient, is subject to MICRA’s statute of limitations because the injury occurred during, and as a result of, the provision of medical care by a medical provider … [we] conclude that MICRA is not limited to suits by patients or to recipients of medical services as long as the plaintiff is injured due to negligence in the rendering of professional services and his injuries were foreseeable. … The fact that Tostado was not driving quickly here or that Gutierrez was in a separate vehicle rather than in the ambulance does not change the analysis or our conclusion that third parties injured in a collision with an ambulance when it is rendering medical care are subject to MICRA.”

A dissenting opinion stated, in part: “This case arises out of 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. As a consequence, plaintiff Francisco Gutierrez had no way of knowing that the ambulance that rear ended him was transporting a patient and therefore no way of knowing that, under interpretation adopted by the majority, MICRA’s statute of limitations applies … MICRA’s statute of limitations need not be interpreted to apply here because the ambulance that rear-ended plaintiff happened to be carrying a passenger. Instead, MICRA’s statute of limitations can—and, in my view, should—be interpreted to apply only if the plaintiff advances a claim requiring proof that an obligation owed by health providers was violated.”

Source Gutierrez v. Tostado, H049983.

If you or a family member were injured as a result of medical malpractice in California or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a California medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your family member in a medical medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Visit our website or call us toll free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in California or in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.