Daily Blast September 15, 2017

This week, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four (San Francisco), in Johnson v. Open Door Community Health Centers, (Sept. 11, 2017, A143992) __ Cal.App.5th___, addressed “the precise boundary between the duties owed by a healthcare provider to the general public and those owed to its patients,” for the purpose of determining the applicable statute of limitations for an injury occurring at a health clinic. (Slip. opn., p. 4.) The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant healthcare provider, applying the one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”). (Id. at p. 2.) The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury applied. (Id. at p. 2.)

The plaintiff sustained injuries when she tripped over a scale that was moved during her initial consult, which partially obstructed her path as she was leaving the clinic. (Slip opn., pp. 1-2). Relying on the California Supreme Court’s holding in Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp. (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 75 (Flores), the Court of Appeal concluded MICRA did not apply to these facts. (Id. at p. 7.) In Flores, the Court rejected a “narrow rule limiting ‘professional services’ to only those tasks requiring medical skill and training.” (Id. at p. 4). Flores also rejected “as too broad, a proposed rule that ‘professional services’ include all acts associated with the provision of medical care.” (Id. at p. 5.) Instead, the court must draw a distinction between “the professional obligations of hospitals in the rendering of medical care to their patients and the obligations hospitals have, simply by virtue of operating facilities open to the public, to maintain their premises in a manner that preserves the well-being and safety of all users.” (Id. at p. 5, quoting Flores, 63 Cal.4th at p. 87.)

The Court of Appeal in Johnson ultimately concluded the plaintiff was injured after her care was completed. Further, the plaintiff did not allege that tripping over the scale affected the quality of her medical  care. Thus, because the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the healthcare provider’s breach of a duty to maintain its premises in a manner that preserves the safety of all its visitors, the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury applied. (Slip. opn. p. 6.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate