A woman who suffered a stroke hours after a car crash cannot sue the Petaluma paramedics who responded to the crash scene, a state appeals panel has ruled, finding the paramedics honored her repeated refusals to be transported by ambulance to a hospital for further examination and observation.
On Nov. 25, a three-justice panel of the California First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected the appeal from plaintiff Marites Murphy, as she sought to continue her lawsuit against the city of Petaluma for her injuries.
Murphy had filed suit in 2021, a year after suffering a stroke.
According to court documents, Murphy had been involved in a car crash in Petaluma in February 2020.
During on-scene evaluations, paramedics reportedly determined she had been wearing a seatbelt during the crah and had not hit her head in the collision or lost consciousness.
Further, she showed no signs of "hypertensive crisis," such as a headache, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting or pupil dilation, nor any signs of "cognitive impairment," such as "confusion, poor balance, signs of excessive anxiety, panic or shock," slurred speech or disorientation.
Paramedics determined she was "fully responsive and alert."
Paramedics nontheless reportedly offered repeatedly to transport Murphy to a hospital for further examination and observation, recommending she accept because she may have suffered an injury of which she was unaware and "that manifestation of such injury could be delayed, and ... life-threatening."
Murphy, however, repeatedly declined the offers of emergency medical transport to the hospital, telling paramedics she felt fine.
According to court documents, paramedics determined she was in her right mind and fully capable of making her own medical decisions, and, after caring for and transporting the driver of the other vehicle, cleared the scene.
According to court documents, Murphy then went to her boyfriend's house, where she fell asleep and reportedly suffered a stroke allegedly resulting from "hypertensive crisis caused by the collision."
According to court documents, Murphy suffered "permanent brain damage, speech and language impairment and paralysis of her right side." Further, Murphy allegedly had no memory of the traffic crash or of her interactions with the Petaluma paramedics.
Murphy then filed suit, represented by attorneys Tiffany Gates, of San Luis Obispo; Brian T. Flahaven, of Flahavan Law Officers, of Santa Rosa; and Michael Henderson, of Henderson Law, of Santa Rosa.
In her lawsuit, Murphy and her lawyers invoked the so-called "negligent undertaking doctrine," claiming the city should pay because the paramedics had not properly cared for her at the traffic crash scene, and specifically had not done enough to detect her "potential brain injury" or warning signs of a stroke.
A Sonoma County Superior Court judge, however, determined the paramedics had no obligation to provide such assistance, given her alleged condition immediately following the crash and repeated refusals to be transported by ambulance to a hospital.
Murphy and her legal team then appealed, but fared no better before the higher court.
In the ruling, the appellate panel said the lawsuit can't proceed, because neither the city nor its paramedics had a duty under the law to provide the care Murphy's lawsuit claims she was owed.
"The paramedics did not make Murphy any promises with respect to medical assistance, let alone fail to follow through on such promises. They did not ignore any requests for such assistance," the appellate panel wrote.
"To the contrary, they urged her to let them provide medical assistance and warned her that symptoms of a serious, even life threatening, injury could be delayed. She nevertheless reiterated she did not want medical assistance or transport to a hospital for examination. And while Murphy claims the paramedics failed to conduct a medical assessment sufficient to detect a potential brain injury or hypertensive crisis, the crisis she subsequently experienced was caused by the collision."
The decision was authored by First District Appellate Justice Kathleen M. Banke. She was joined in the decision by Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson and San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth M. Hill, who sat on the panel by special designation of the court.
The city of Petaluma was represented by attorneys Kevin E. Gilbert and Nicholas D. Fine, of the firm of Orbach Huff & Henderson, of Los Angeles; and city attorneys Eric W. Danly and Jordan M. Green.