Murphy v. City of Petaluma

1

MARITES MURPHY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF PETALUMA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A168012

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division

November 25, 2024

Trial Court: Sonoma County Superior Court Hon. No. SCV-267491 Patrick M. Broderick Trial Judge

Law Offices of Tiffany Gates, Tiffany Gates; Flahavan Law Officers, Brian Thomas Flahavan; Henderson Law, Michael Henderson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Orbach Huff &Henderson LLP, Kevin E. Gilbert and Nicholas Daniel Fine, Eric W. Danly, City Attorney, Jordan Mitchel Green Assistant City Attorney for Defendants and Respondents.

BANKE ACTING P.J.

Marites Murphy sued the City of Petaluma and fire department paramedics Jude Prokop and Shay Burke for medical negligence after the two paramedics responded to the scene of a head-on automobile collision in which Murphy was involved. As we shall discuss, the distinctive feature of this case is that Murphy repeatedly told the paramedics she was not injured and did not want or need medical assistance, and she said so even after being warned she might have suffered a serious injury that was not yet symptomatic and being urged to accept transport to a hospital for examination by a physician. Accordingly, after concluding Murphy had the capacity to refuse medical treatment, the paramedics left the scene. Unfortunately, hours later, Murphy suffered a serious debilitating stroke attributable to a hypertensive crisis triggered by the collision. She subsequently filed this lawsuit alleging the paramedics owed her a duty of care which they breached through gross negligence, to assess her medical condition and to arrange transport to a hospital. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling the paramedics did not assume a duty of care to provide Murphy with the medical assistance she claims was owed. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In February 2020, Murphy was involved in a head-on car collision in Petaluma. Fire Department Captain Jude Prokop and engineer Shay Burke, both licensed paramedics, responded to the scene. When they arrived, the two drivers were out of their vehicles and walking around.

Prokop was responsible for initially managing the accident scene and dealing with the individuals involved. He asked Murphy if she was involved in the collision and whether she was hurt or needed medical assistance. Murphy confirmed she was involved in the collision but stated she was not hurt and did not want or need medical assistance.

Burke then spoke with Murphy. Like Prokop, Burke asked Murphy questions to determine her involvement in the collision and whether she needed medical assistance. Murphy again confirmed she was the driver of one of the vehicles, stated she was not hurt, and repeated she did not want or need medical assistance. Although Murphy appeared annoyed that Burke was not attending to the other driver who was obviously injured Burke told her she needed to speak to him. In response to additional questions, Murphy told Burke she had not hit her head during the collision, did not lose consciousness, was wearing a seatbelt at the time, and was" 'fine.'" He did not visually observe any signs of injury or that she was in pain. She did not display or complain of any common signs of a hypertensive crisis such as headache, blurred vision, nausea, projectile vomiting, or pupil dilation. And she did not display any signs of cognitive impairment.^[1] She did not display any confusion, poor balance, signs of excessive anxiety, panic, or shock. She did not slur her words, appear or sound disoriented, or display repetitive speech patterns. Accordingly, on the Glasgow Coma Scale-used to measure a person's level of consciousness based on their ability to perform eye movements, speak, and move their body-Burke gave Murphy the highest possible score, meaning she was fully responsive and alert.

After Murphy continued to insist she was not injured and did not want or need medical assistance, Burke explained it was possible she had suffered an injury of which she was unaware, that manifestation of such injury could be delayed, and such injury could be life-threatening. Burke therefore recommended she accept transportation to a hospital where she could be examined by a physician as a precautionary measure. Murphy responded she was aware of the risks but again stated she was not injured and declined transportation to the hospital. Burke then advised Murphy of the potential signs of serious injury of which she should be aware.

Burke thereafter turned his attention to the other driver, who was being assisted by an EMT and was later transported to the hospital by ambulance.

After Burke addressed hazards at the accident scene, Prokop asked him to confirm no additional ambulance was needed. Accordingly, Burke returned to Murphy to ask if she had developed a headache or required any medical assistance. Murphy said she did not have a headache and again refused medical assistance. Burke again observed Murphy did not display any objective signs of injury or cognitive impairment.

Just before the paramedics left the scene, Prokop again spoke with Murphy, who was talking to an individual whose car had been parked alongside the roadway and was struck in a secondary collision. Prokop wanted final confirmation no additional ambulance was required. The individual confirmed he had not been involved in the primary collision, and Murphy again said she was fine and did not want or need medical assistance or transport to a hospital. At no time during his interactions with Murphy, did Prokop observe any signs of injury, cognitive impairment, or hypertensive crisis.^[2]

Based on their observations and interactions with Murphy, Prokop and Burke concluded she was alert and oriented, had the capacity to understand her circumstances and the risks of refusing medical treatment, and she had expressly exercised her right to refuse such treatment.^[3]

Prokop and Burke then left the scene, approximately 16 minutes after they had arrived.

Murphy, in turn, called her boyfriend, who drove her to his house, where she fell asleep. A few hours later, he was unable to wake her. It was subsequently determined she suffered a stroke in her sleep due to a hypertensive crisis caused by the collision. The stroke left Murphy with permanent brain damage, speech and language impairment, and paralysis of her right side. Murphy has no recollection of the collision or her interactions with either paramedic that day.

In February 2021, Murphy filed the operative complaint against the City for medical negligence under Government Code sections 815.2, subdivision (a) and 820, subdivision (a). She alleged Prokop and Burke were "grossly negligent in their medical examination, evaluation and treatment of [her]," including failing to conduct reasonable medical assessments, failing to examine and/or record various biomarkers, and failing to transport her to an emergency medical facility.^[4] More specifically, she alleged Prokop and Burke were grossly negligent in failing to conduct any "reasonable medical assessment" to detect a potential brain injury or the presence of a hypertensive crisis.^[5] Defendants, alleged Murphy, "took no steps to assess [her] condition, nor to transport [her] to a medical facility capable of making the necessary medical assessment."

The City subsequently moved for summary judgment or adjudication on several grounds, including that, given Murphy's repeated refusals of medical assistance and offers of transport to a hospital for examination by a physician, the paramedics owed no duty to provide Murphy with the medical care she claims should have been provided.

Stating "the issue here is whether Prokop or Burke voluntarily assumed a duty to provide a particular level of protection to Plaintiff and then failed to do so," the court granted the City's motion. The court ruled the "evidence does not establish that medical care was initiated; just that it was offered." The paramedics did not, in other words, "take any action which created a duty to perform a full assessment of Plaintiff's medical condition." In short, under the undisputed circumstances-i.e., that Murphy repeatedly refused offers of medical assistance, including after she was urged to accept it-the paramedics did not owe Murphy a duty to provide such assistance.

DISCUSSION^[6]

"Liability for malpractice and negligence is based upon the defendant's breach of a legal duty of care. (Rainer v. Grossman (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 539, 542....)

Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law that is determined on a case-by-case basis. (Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 . . .; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610....)" (McCurry, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1175-1176.)

Murphy maintains defendants owed her a duty of care to provide medical assistance in accordance with Health and Safety section 1799.106 pursuant to the "negligent undertaking doctrine."

As recently discussed in Golick v. State of California (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1143-1146 (Golick), the negligent undertaking doctrine is one of the threads of analysis that address duty in connection with harm caused by a third party. It is well established there is no general duty to protect others from the conduct of third parties. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 214; Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23 (Williams).) This no-duty-to-aid rule applies equally to emergency rescue personnel, including paramedics. (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185; see Golick, at p. 1144.)

The" 'no-duty-to-protect rule is not,'" however," 'absolute,' as...