Does a plaintiff have to prove any non-medical employee knew or had reason to know of his need for immediate medical care?

Rios's attempt to bootstrap the requirement that he prove any non-medical employee knew or had reason to know of his need for "immediate medical care" to the non-medical employee's knowledge he is in a wheelchair is wholly unsupported by California statutory and case law. The first clause of section 845.6 "refers to immunity generally of both the public entity and its employees for failure to furnish ["or obtain"] medical care to a prisoner. In the second clause, however, liability is narrowly limited to the particular instances: (1) where the employee knows or has reason to know of the need (2) of immediate medical care and (3) fails to summon such care." (Sanders v. County of Yuba (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 748, 753, italics added.)