Quantcast

Plaintiff appeals decision for American Medical Response West in ambulance accident

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Plaintiff appeals decision for American Medical Response West in ambulance accident

State Court
770f5b5d ecde 4dc7 8e94 c76b0df834a6

judge and hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

Plaintiff Ricardo Lopez has filed a complaint against Michael Dayton and American Medical Response West (AMR) alleging motor vehicle negligence. The complaint was filed in the Contra Costa County Superior Court on January 28, 2021. Lopez contends that he sustained injuries due to a collision with an ambulance operated by Dayton, who is a certified EMT employed by AMR.

The incident in question occurred on April 23, 2019, when Dayton was transporting a patient to the hospital without using the ambulance's siren or emergency lights. As Dayton made a right-hand turn, his ambulance collided with Lopez's vehicle, which was making a left-hand turn from the opposite direction. Almost two years later, Lopez initiated legal action against both AMR and Dayton, asserting that their negligent actions were the proximate cause of his injuries.

In response to the lawsuit, the defendants filed for summary judgment, arguing that Lopez’s claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations stipulated under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). According to MICRA, claims against healthcare providers based on professional negligence must be filed within one year. The trial court agreed with this argument and granted summary judgment in favor of Dayton and AMR. The court reasoned that since Dayton was providing professional medical services at the time of the accident—specifically transporting a patient—the special limitations period under MICRA applied.

Lopez appealed this decision, arguing that MICRA should not apply because his claim involved general negligence rather than professional negligence. He asserted that he was neither a patient nor an occupant in the ambulance and thus could not have sued under professional negligence grounds. However, appellate courts have consistently interpreted "professional negligence" broadly to include any act or omission by healthcare providers while rendering professional services.

The appellate court reviewed several precedents where MICRA’s provisions were applied even when non-patients were injured due to professional services provided by healthcare workers. For instance, in Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service Inc., it was determined that transporting patients and operating an ambulance are integral duties of an EMT and thus fall under professional services covered by MICRA.

Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that transporting a patient via ambulance constitutes providing medical care. Consequently, Lopez’s injury resulting from this act fell within MICRA’s definition of professional negligence. Therefore, his claim was subject to MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations and was rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Lopez's appeal also included arguments about foreseeability and fairness but these were rejected based on established case law indicating that transportation-related injuries caused by EMTs during their professional duties are foreseeable and fall under MICRA’s purview.

The attorneys representing Ricardo Lopez are not named in this document. The judges involved in this case include Langhorne Wilson J., Humes P.J., and Banke J., with Case ID A168458N.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News