Code Details

Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3273.69] ( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Opioid antagonist” means naloxone hydrochloride or any other opioid antagonist that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of an opioid overdose.

(2) “Opioid overdose prevention and treatment training program” means any program operated by a local health jurisdiction or that is registered by a local health jurisdiction to train individuals to prevent, recognize, and respond to an opiate overdose, and that provides, at a minimum, training in all of the following:

(A) The causes of an opiate overdose.

(B) Mouth to mouth resuscitation.

(C) How to contact appropriate emergency medical services.

(D) How to administer an opioid antagonist.

(b) A licensed health care provider who is authorized by law to prescribe an opioid antagonist may, if acting with reasonable care, prescribe and subsequently dispense or distribute an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose or to a family member, friend, or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose.

(c) (1) A licensed health care provider who is authorized by law to prescribe an opioid antagonist may issue standing orders for the distribution of an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose or to a family member, friend, or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose.

(2) A licensed health care provider who is authorized by law to prescribe an opioid antagonist may issue standing orders for the administration of an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose by a family member, friend, or other person in a position to assist a person experiencing or reasonably suspected of experiencing an opioid overdose.

(d) (1) A person who is prescribed or possesses an opioid antagonist pursuant to a standing order shall receive the training provided by an opioid overdose prevention and treatment training program.

(2) A person who is prescribed an opioid antagonist directly from a licensed prescriber shall not be required to receive training from an opioid prevention and treatment training program.

(e) A licensed health care provider who acts with reasonable care shall not be subject to professional review, be liable in a civil action, or be subject to criminal prosecution for issuing a prescription or order pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c).

(f) Notwithstanding any other law, a person who possesses or distributes an opioid antagonist pursuant to a prescription or standing order shall not be subject to professional review, be liable in a civil action, or be subject to criminal prosecution for this possession or distribution. Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise licensed to administer an opioid antagonist, but trained as required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), who acts with reasonable care in administering an opioid antagonist, in good faith and not for compensation, to a person who is experiencing or is suspected of experiencing an overdose shall not be subject to professional review, be liable in a civil action, or be subject to criminal prosecution for this administration.

(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 554, Sec. 1. (SB 823) Effective January 1, 2022.)

Civil Code § 1714.22 Summary

Important Note: While the provided title for this article references “Civil Immunity for Automated External Defibrillator Use,” the *actual text* of California Civil Code § 1714.22, as provided above, pertains exclusively to Civil Immunity for Opioid Antagonist Use. This summary and subsequent sections will address the statute based on its actual content regarding opioid antagonists.

California Civil Code § 1714.22 grants civil and criminal immunity to specific individuals and healthcare providers involved in the prescription, distribution, possession, and administration of opioid antagonists (like naloxone) to prevent or treat opioid overdoses.

The statute defines an “opioid antagonist” as an FDA-approved drug for opioid overdose treatment and specifies what constitutes an “opioid overdose prevention and treatment training program.”

Key provisions include:

• Healthcare Providers: Licensed healthcare providers authorized to prescribe opioid antagonists can, with reasonable care, prescribe, dispense, or distribute them to individuals at risk of overdose, or their family/friends. They can also issue standing orders for distribution and administration. Such providers are immune from professional review, civil liability, or criminal prosecution for these actions.
• Individuals Receiving Antagonists: People who possess or distribute opioid antagonists based on a valid prescription or standing order are immune from professional review, civil liability, or criminal prosecution for that possession or distribution.
• Administration by Laypersons: Individuals not licensed to administer but trained by an approved program (as required for those receiving antagonists via standing order) are immune from professional review, civil liability, or criminal prosecution if they administer an opioid antagonist with reasonable care, in good faith, and without compensation, to someone experiencing or suspected of experiencing an overdose.
• Training Requirements: Training from an approved program is required for individuals prescribed or possessing an opioid antagonist pursuant to a standing order. However, if an individual receives an opioid antagonist directly from a licensed prescriber, this specific training is not mandated by this statute.

Purpose of Civil Code § 1714.22

The legislative purpose behind California Civil Code § 1714.22 is to combat the opioid overdose crisis by increasing access to life-saving opioid antagonists like naloxone. By providing civil and criminal immunity, the statute aims to encourage healthcare professionals to prescribe and distribute these medications more widely and to empower trained laypersons to administer them in emergency situations without fear of legal repercussions. This “Good Samaritan” type protection is designed to remove barriers that might otherwise discourage intervention, thereby reducing fatalities from opioid overdoses. The law acknowledges that prompt administration of an opioid antagonist is critical in overdose situations and seeks to facilitate such rapid response by alleviating liability concerns for those acting in good faith.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 1714.22

Consider Maria, a concerned mother whose adult son, David, has a history of opioid use disorder. Maria attends a local “opioid overdose prevention and treatment training program” offered by her county health department. Through this program, she learns to recognize overdose symptoms, perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, contact emergency services, and properly administer naloxone.

After completing the training, a licensed healthcare provider, Dr. Smith, issues a standing order for Maria to obtain naloxone from a pharmacy, recognizing David’s risk of overdose. Maria fills the prescription and keeps the naloxone at home.

One evening, David is found unresponsive, showing clear signs of an opioid overdose. Remembering her training, Maria immediately calls 911, then administers the naloxone to David. While waiting for paramedics, David begins to recover consciousness.

Under Civil Code § 1714.22:

• Dr. Smith is immune from civil liability, professional review, or criminal prosecution for issuing the standing order to Maria, provided she acted with reasonable care.
• Maria is immune from civil liability, professional review, or criminal prosecution for possessing the naloxone (due to the standing order) and for administering it to David. Her immunity applies because she received the required training, acted with reasonable care, in good faith, and without compensation to save David’s life.

This statute protects those who take proactive steps, often in highly stressful, life-or-death situations, to prevent overdose fatalities.

Related Statutes

• Civil Code § 1714.21 (Civil Immunity for Automated External Defibrillator Use): This is another “Good Samaritan” type immunity statute, but it specifically applies to the acquisition, placement, and use of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). While distinct in its subject matter, it shares a similar legislative intent to encourage life-saving interventions by limiting liability.
• Health and Safety Code § 11165.1 (Naloxone Dispensing Protocol): This section specifically authorizes pharmacists to dispense naloxone hydrochloride without a prescription pursuant to a standing order or protocol, which directly facilitates the distribution mechanisms allowed under Civil Code § 1714.22.
• Business and Professions Code § 4111.4 (Pharmacist Furnishing Naloxone): This section allows pharmacists to furnish naloxone directly to individuals without a prescription, following specific protocols and training requirements, further expanding access to the opioid antagonist.
• Health and Safety Code § 11375 (Possession of Specified Controlled Substances): This general statute addresses the unlawful possession of certain controlled substances. Civil Code § 1714.22 provides an exception to potential criminal liability for possession of opioid antagonists when obtained lawfully.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 1714.22

As Civil Code § 1714.22 was significantly amended and became effective on January 1, 2022, there is currently a lack of published appellate case law directly interpreting this specific statute. It is a relatively new immunity provision aimed at public health. Most discussions of this statute are found in legislative analyses, legal commentaries, or medical guidelines rather than judicial opinions. As the statute’s application becomes more widespread, it is possible that case law will develop in the future.

Why Civil Code § 1714.22 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 1714.22 significantly impacts personal injury litigation by creating a strong shield against liability for specific actions related to opioid overdose prevention and treatment.

• For Healthcare Providers: The statute provides a robust defense for licensed healthcare professionals against claims of medical malpractice, professional negligence, or even criminal charges related to prescribing, dispensing, or issuing standing orders for opioid antagonists, provided they acted with “reasonable care.” This means a plaintiff attempting to sue a doctor for an adverse outcome after an antagonist was prescribed would face a high hurdle in proving that the provider’s actions exceeded the scope of immunity.
• For Laypersons: This immunity is crucial for “Good Samaritans” who administer an opioid antagonist in an emergency. If someone trained and acting in good faith without compensation administers naloxone to an overdose victim, and the victim or their family later tries to sue for alleged harm (e.g., related to the administration technique or a perceived delay in calling EMS), Civil Code § 1714.22 serves as a powerful defense. The plaintiff would need to demonstrate that the administrator acted without “reasonable care,” in “bad faith,” or “for compensation,” which are specific exceptions to the immunity.
• Plaintiff Strategy: Plaintiffs’ attorneys in personal injury cases involving opioid overdoses must carefully assess whether the actions of any involved party fall within the protections of Civil Code § 1714.22. If a defendant is immune under this statute, pursuing a claim against them for actions covered by the immunity would likely be unsuccessful. Attorneys would need to focus on parties or actions not covered by the immunity, or prove that the defendant’s conduct fell outside the “reasonable care,” “good faith,” and “not for compensation” parameters.
• Defense Arguments: For defendants, Civil Code § 1714.22 provides a clear and direct affirmative defense. If a client is sued for actions related to opioid antagonist use, their defense attorney can invoke this statute, arguing that the client’s actions were protected and therefore they are not liable in a civil action. This can lead to early dismissal of claims or significantly limit the scope of litigation.

In essence, this statute shifts the legal landscape, encouraging intervention in opioid overdose emergencies by reducing the legal risks associated with such life-saving efforts. It ensures that fear of litigation doesn’t deter people from acting when every second counts.