By Eric Ganci
This comes from the December 1, 2023 filed decision Gutierrez v. Tosado from the Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California, 97 Cal.App.5th 786.
First, what happened in Gutierrez?
Defendant was an EMT, driving an ambulance while his partner attended to a patient. Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit within a 2-year statute of limitations, but after the 1-year statute of limitations per MICRA, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act.
The Trial Court granted an MSJ in favor of Defendant regarding the statute of limitation and Plaintiff appealed.
So the Court here gives this issue is this:
“[W]e 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 Court here also restates the question as this:
“[T]he 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.”
The Court discusses two other cases, Flores and Lee, which had similar issues, but different than this case. With this, the Court says this:
“…neither Flores nor Lee considered MICRA’s applicability to nonpatients, we must agree with Canister and Lopez and 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.”
And the decision here, is the Court holds in favor of Defendant, saying the MICRA statute of limitations applies to this case, barring Plaintiffs lawsuit.
Justice Bromberg writes a dissenting opinion.
