Daily Blast August 4, 2016

When does the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act’s (MICRA) statute of limitations apply to incidents involving paramedics in transit? In Aldana v. Stillwagon (Aug. 3, 2016, B259538) __ Cal.App.4th __, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six (Ventura) analyzed whether MICRA’s statute of limitations applies to a suit for negligence against a paramedic driving to the scene of an injury. The court held that MICRA did not apply because the claim did not arise from “the provision of medical care to patients.” (Slip opn., p. 6, quoting Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, 88 (“Flores”).)

The plaintiff and defendant were involved in an automobile accident. (Slip opn., p. 1.) At the time of the accident, the defendant, a paramedic supervisor, was on duty and driving his employer’s pickup truck to the location of an injured person. (Id. at pp. 1-3.) The plaintiff filed suit for negligence approximately 17 months later. (Id. at p. 3.) The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations applied in this case, making the complaint untimely. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the one-year MICRA statute of limitations did not apply. (Slip opn., p. 2.) The court reasoned that MICRA’s application did not depend on whether the defendant was acting within the scope of his employment. (Id. at p. 5.) Rather, the operative question was whether the claim arose from “professional services . . . for which the provider is licensed.” (Ibid.) The court followed Flores, which held that the MICRA statute of limitations applies only to “actions alleging injury suffered as a result of negligence in . . . the provision of medical care to patients.” (Id. at p. 6, quoting Flores, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 88.) In this case, the court held that “[d]riving to an accident victim is not the same as providing medical care to the victim.” (Slip opn., p. 6.) The court reasoned that negligence in driving to the scene of an accident breached a general duty owed to the public to drive safely rather than a duty owed to the patient to “render . . . medical diagnosis and treatment.” (Ibid.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate