DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT AMBULANCE OPERATION CAPPED AT $250,000
It has been long settled that general damages, such as for claims of pain, suffering and mental anguish, are typically limited to a maximum of $250,000 in medical malpractice actions. This is based upon the application of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), embodied in California Civil Code, §3333.2.
The California Court of Appeal, in the matter of Randy B. Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, ((Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2008 WL 467430, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2234, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2739) has taken on the issue of whether, and the extent to which, MICRA limitations might apply in an action in which a person was injured as a result of the negligence of ambulance personnel.
In Canister, the Court of Appeal cast aside the plaintiff’s argument that MICRA limitations were only intended to apply to paramedics (EMT-Ps), as opposed to an emergency medical technician (EMT-1), as was involved here. Specifically, after a detailed examination of legislative history and intent, the Court determined that EMTs of all types -- EMT-1, EMT-2 and EMT-P -- are all “health care providers” such that they might be entitled to MICRA protection in the event of “professional negligence.
It did not matter that the only medical expertise required of EMT-1s is that they are able to recognize respiratory and cardiac distress, and to render cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
While the decision in Canister is of import with respect to who qualifies as a “health care professional,” the greater significance of this case lies in the Court’s determination of what qualifies as “professional negligence.”
MICRA defines “professional negligence” as that negligence which occurs while the health care provider is providing services that are “within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed.” California Civil Code, §§3333.1(c)(2) and 3333.2(c)(2). In this context, the Court of Appeal stated that the relevant test is whether the negligence occurred in the rendering of services for which a provider is licensed. This is not limited to those services for which a high degree of skill or medical judgment is required. Indeed, an x-ray technician, for example, may perform a variety of tasks, such as assisting the patient onto the table, manipulating the table into one or more desired positions, instructing the patient to move from one position to another, activating the x-ray machine, removing the photographic plates, assisting the patient from the table, etc. The Court determined that although some of those tasks may require a high degree of skill and judgment, but others do not. Each, however, is an integral part of the professional service being rendered.
Similarly, the Court determined an EMT performs a number of tasks in transporting a patient to a hospital, any one of which might result in a claim of negligence. Transporting patients and driving or operating an ambulance is an integral part of the professional service an EMT renders and, hence, the negligent operation of an ambulance by an EMT constitutes “professional negligence” to which MICRA applies.
Because MICRA limits general damage recoveries for ordinary professional negligence to a maximum of $250,000, based upon the Canister decision, a person claiming injury due to an EMT’s negligent operation of an ambulance cannot recover more than $250,000 for his or her general damages, including pain and suffering. This is the case whether or not the injured party was a patient in the ambulance at the time he or she sustained injury.
Indeed, MICRA applies to negligent conduct by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services, and is not limited to actions by the recipient of the professional services. “MICRA limitations apply to any foreseeable injured party, including patients, business invitees, staff members or visitors, provided the injuries arose out of professional negligence.” Accordingly, the Court of Appeals in Canister determined that the personal injury claim of a police officer, accompanying an arrestee/patient in an ambulance negligently operated by an EMT-1, was subject to MICRA limitations. Furthermore, based upon the broad language of the holding in this case, we at Tharpe & Howell believe that a credible argument can be made for the proposition that MICRA limitations could similarly apply to the claim of a motorist or pedestrian injured as a result of an EMT’s negligent operation of an ambulance.
|
Related Attorney(s):
Shawn K. Elliott
Related Practice Area(s):
Transportation Law
|
