In Collins v. County of San Diego, published February 17, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed a judgment entered after jury trial. County sheriff's deputies investigated reports from the plaintiff that resulted from the plaintiff's delusions. The plaintiff's roommates told the deputies that the plaintiff had been acting oddly. There was conflicting evidence over whether the roommates said the plaintiff had been binge drinking. The plaintiff left the apartment, stumbled, and fell. A passerby called 911. Paramedics arrived and began assessing the plaintiff. An ambulance was called. Sheriff's deputies, including one who had been involved in the call to the apartment, arrived and arrested the plaintiff. There was conflicting evidence over whether the paramedics had completed assessment of the plaintiff. The arresting deputy took the plaintiff to jail. There, a nurse employed by the county conducted a medical intake exam. The nurse decided the plaintiff was safe to place in a jail cell. The plaintiff sustained a forehead injury, treated with a band-aid. The jail doctor visited the plaintiff in jail. He was not told of the plaintiff's hallucinations or incoherent statements, or that he had fallen and injured his head. The doctor concluded no further care was needed. The plaintiff fell again. He was taken to a private hospital. He was diagnosed with severely low sodium level and a brain bleed to his frontal lobe. The doctors at the hospital allegedly mistreated the condition, further injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff settled with the hospital and its doctors. He then sued the county, two of the arresting deputies, and the two nurses who saw him in jail. The jury found the deputies and nurses negligent, but rejected an unlawful arrest claim on the ground the deputies had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.
The court of appeal rejected the defendants' various attacks on the judgment. The defendants argued that the negligence verdict against the deputies was inconsistent with the finding that they had probable cause to arrest. The appellate court concluded that while probable cause would immunize the deputies from liability for a negligent arrest, it did not immunize them from negligence apart from the arrest. Here, there was evidence supporting the plaintiff's theory that the officers negligently interfered with the paramedics due to arresting him before they had a chance to finish their examination. The court also rejected an attack on an instruction that the deputies were liable for the doctors' and hospital's alleged negligence in treating him. A defendant who negligently injures a plaintiff is liable for any subsequent injury from negligent treatment of the injury they caused. The court rejected the argument that Government Code section 845.6 immunized the deputies or county from liability for the subsequent medical treatment. Section 845.6 applies only to injuries to prisoners, and the plaintiff was not yet a prisoner when the deputies allegedly interfered with the paramedics. The appellate court rejected the argument that the individual defendants were immune from liability for the plaintiff's injuries in jail under Government Code section 844.6's immunity for injuries to prisoners. Section 844.6 immunizes only public entities, not public employees. The nurse who initially examined the plaintiff argued he was immune under Government Code section 855.6, which immunizes examinations to determine if persons are dangers to themselves or others. The court ruled that the immunity did not apply, because it is inapplicable to examinations for the purpose of treatment. One of the purposes of the examination was to determine whether the plaintiff needed medical treatment. Finally, the court approved the trial court's apportionment of the offset from the doctors' and hospital's settlement against the judgment, which did not reduce the percentage of the settlement amount apportioned to noneconomic damages based on MICRA limitations on noneconomic damages. MICRA caps apply only to judgments, not settlements.
Comments