In a just-published opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that an EMT ambulance driver is, as a matter of law, a "health care provider" protected by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).
This could make it indirectly harder for a plaintiff to win in a case involving the negligent operation of the ambulance. Here's how:
In the "typical" negligence case, the collateral source rule generally bars the introduction of evidence of payments from collateral sources.
But under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, Civil Code Section 3333.1 modified the collateral source rule by permitting a defendant to introduce evidence in medical negligence cases of any amount payable from collateral sources to the plaintiff, such as health insurance, disability insurance or workers' compensation.
And when a jury hears that a plaintiff has already been at least partially (if not totally) compensated through collateral sources, or so the argument goes, it can prejudice a plaintiff's case since juries are less likely to find fault in a close case if the plaintiff has already been compensated through other sources.
Which was precisely the case in the instant matter:
In this case, the plaintiff was a police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, accompanying an arrestee in the back of an ambulance when it hit a curb, injuring him.
At his trial the judge permitted the defendant to introduce evidence of collateral source payments, ruling that the ambulance driver's conduct qualified as "professional negligence" subject to the MICRA statutes.
The jury rendered a defense verdict and the plaintiff claimed in his appeal that the verdict was solely the result of the prejudicial effect of the trial court permitting the constant mention of collateral source payments before the jury.
The certified-for-publication opinion agreed with the trial judge:
"We hold 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."
The case is Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Services.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
