In Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 388, the defendant was a licensed ambulance company in which a police officer, who was accompanying an "arrestee" in one of its ambulances, was injured when that ambulance hit a curb. Although the case did not involve any statute of limitations issue, it did involve whether any and all of the MICRA statutes applied to ambulance companies and their employees. Citing many of the cases discussed above, our colleagues in a division of the Second District had no difficulty in concluding that the MICRA statutes applied, i.e., that the case dealt with "professional negligence." In so holding, the court stated: "The MICRA statutes define '"professional negligence"' as that negligence that occurs while the health care provider is providing services that are 'within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed.' (Citations to statutes, including section 340.5.) The relevant test is not the degree of skill required, but whether the negligence occurred in the rendering of services for which a provider is licensed. Although the act of operating an ambulance may be performed by someone having no special knowledge, skill or care as a member of the medical profession, this does not mean the employees here in question were not acting as health care providers in transporting the patient to a medical facility. . . . Moreover, we disagree with appellant's further claim that 'professional negligence' does not encompass operation of an ambulance, whether as a driver or as an attendant. As previously noted, courts have broadly construed 'professional negligence' to mean negligence occurring during the rendering of services for which the health care provider is licensed. " (Canister, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at pp. 404, 406.)