| |
|
|
Appellate Court holds EMT’s are covered by MICRA whether
rendering medical care or driving an ambulance
Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service (February 22, 2008) |
In Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service (February 22, 2008) 08
C.D.O.S. 1889, Division Eight of the Second Appellate District held
that “EMT’s are health care providers and negligence in operating an
ambulance qualifies as professional negligence when the EMT is
rendering services that are identified with human health and for
which he or she is licensed.” In so holding, the appellate court
affirmed a jury’s verdict for defendant Emergency Ambulance Service
(EAS) and against Randy Canister, a police officer with the LAPD who
was injured while riding in the back of an ambulance operated by EAS.
Canister was accompanying an injured arrestee when the ambulance hit
a curb and appellant—who was not wearing a seatbelt—was injured. The
record showed that both employees of EAS held EMT-I licenses, and
were “acting in the course and scope of employment.” Canister sued
EAS as the employer of the EMT’s on the grounds that the ambulance
was negligently driven and neither employee told him there were
seatbelts he could use in the back of the ambulance.
Before the trial began, the court ruled that Canister’s action would
be subject to MICRA and admitted evidence of collateral source
payments to Canister for his medical bills and lost earnings under
Civil Code section 3333.1. There was conflicting evidence about
whether Canister was told about the availability of seatbelts, and
whether the driver of the ambulance drove negligently. The jury
deliberated for just an hour before finding that EAS was not
negligent. Canister appealed.
Among the contentions made by Canister on appeal was that the court
erred in ruling his action was subject to MICRA. He claimed the fact
the court allowed in evidence of collateral source payments
prejudiced the jury against him and prevented a “fair assessment of
liability.” The court of appeal disagreed. Because the question of
whether EMT’s are health care providers is a question of law, the
appellate court could review the case de novo.
First, it held that EMT’s are health care providers clearly covered
by MICRA. The statutes which govern the licensing of and standards
for EMT’s leave no doubt that all EMT’s are health care providers.
Indeed, the Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act (EMS Act) “created
a comprehensive system to govern virtually every aspect of
prehospital emergency medical services.”
The court went on to say that “[t]he services that EMT’s provide to
patients are “inextricably identified” with the health of patients,
and an ambulance company vicariously assumes the same standing with
such patients through its licensed employees.” So, even though EAS
was the named defendant, MICRA was available to it as the employer
of the EMT’s.
In an aspect of the case that was particularly interesting, the
court held that since negligent operation of the ambulance by the
EMT’s constituted the provision of services for which the provider
is licensed, it constituted professional negligence and fell within
the meaning of MICRA. The court observed that even though the “act
of operating an ambulance may be performed by someone having no
special knowledge, skill or care as a member of the medical
profession, this does not mean the employees here in question were
not acting as health care providers in transporting the patient to a
medical facility.” The court disagreed with Canister who argued that
an EMT’s “professional services” can only be those relating to the
rendering of medical services for which they are licensed, such as
patient resuscitation. It pointed out that EMT’s do need special
licenses to drive ambulances, and that an operator of an ambulance
must be certified to do so by the DMV.
The court went on to say: “Moreover, we disagree with appellant’s
further claim that ‘professional negligence’ does not encompass
operation of an ambulance, whether as a driver or as an attendant.
As previously noted, courts have broadly construed ‘professional
negligence’ to mean negligence occurring during the rendering of
services for which the health care provider is licensed…..An EMT’s
operation of an ambulance qualifies as professional negligence when
the EMT is rendering services for which he or she is licensed or
when a claim for damages is directly related to the provision of
ambulance services by the EMT.”
The court determined as a matter of law that the services rendered
by the EMT-I’s in this case were “directly related to the manner in
which professional services were provided….An integral part of the
duties of an EMT includes transporting patients and driving or
operating an ambulance.”
The fact that Canister was not a patient was of no import, MICRA
still applied. “Indeed, MICRA limitations apply ‘to any foreseeable
injured party, including patients, business invitees, staff members
or visitors, provided the injuries arouse out of professional
negligence.’” In light of this analysis, the appellate court found
the trial court did not err in applying MICRA to the instant action,
and the admission into evidence of collateral source payments was
appropriate.
This decision is straightforward and the court’s analysis is clear
and well-reasoned. In addition, the holdings are consistent with the
intention and goals of MICRA and could be useful to defense counsel
in cases that plaintiffs might characterize as outside the obvious
“rendering of professional services” and therefore beyond the scope
of MICRA. |
|
 |
| |
|
