SANTA CLARA, Calif. — In a landmark decision on July 31, the California Supreme Court clarified that the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) does not apply universally to medical injury cases, significantly broadening the avenues for victims of medical negligence to seek justice.
Originally enacted in 1975, MICRA was designed to lower medical malpractice liability insurance premiums by capping compensation for victims of medical malpractice at $250,000 regardless of harm severity. However, as noted by Trial Lawyers for Justice, the intended effects of the law have not been substantiated over the decades.
In 2022, an agreement was reached between trial attorney Nick Rowley, co-founder of Trial Lawyers for Justice, and the California Medical Association to modernize MICRA’s damage caps. This update aimed to ensure that victims of medical negligence receive fair compensation.
The recent Supreme Court ruling emerged from the case Gutierrez v. Tostado. Francisco Gutierrez filed a lawsuit against emergency medical technician Uriel Tostado and ProTransport-1, LLC after an incident in January 2018, where Tostado, while transporting a patient in an ambulance, rear-ended Gutierrez’s truck.
Gutierrez sustained neck and back injuries and sought damages in 2020, alleging general negligence related to the motor vehicle accident. The trial court sided with the defense, claiming Gutierrez’s claim was barred by MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations since Tostado was acting within the scope of professional medical services.
When Gutierrez appealed, the appellate court supported the trial court’s ruling by arguing that MICRA applies to any injury resulting from professional services provided by health care practitioners, as long as the injuries were foreseeable.
However, the California Supreme Court reversed this judgment. The court determined that while MICRA defines professional services as those performed by a healthcare provider within their licensure scope, its statute of limitations is specifically tied to claims that arise from the healthcare provider’s obligations related to their professional services. Thus, claims alleging breaches of duties owed to the public do not fall under MICRA.
Since Gutierrez’s injuries were related to a duty generally owed to the public rather than a specific medical obligation, the court ruled that MICRA’s limitations were not applicable in this case.
Clint Ehrlich, the attorney representing Gutierrez, commended the ruling, stating, “This landmark opinion affirms that healthcare providers, like everyone else, must be held accountable when they violate basic duties of care.”
The Supreme Court’s decision indicates that not every injury caused by a healthcare provider qualifies as medical malpractice under MICRA. Consequently, victims of negligence will now have greater opportunities to pursue civil claims unbound by the previous limitations of the act.
image source from：davisvanguard
