Not quite the reason for the legal action in the OP. What you are talking about is consent. People who are not decisionally incapacitated by trauma, drugs or mental conditions can refuse even life saving treatment. Failure to adhere to their wishes can result in charges of assault and battery.Last time I took a Red Cross First Aid course, several years ago, the instructor explicitly stressed that you MUST get permission from the injured party, if at ALL possible, before you touch them. He kept coming back to this point, and made us do this to each other when we did the practicing. We HAD to get their attention, identify who we were, and ASK them if they wanted us to help them.
This incident listed above is a perfect example of precisely the reason he drilled this into us, LAWSUITS! You can save a person's life, and they can try to sue you because they have to live in a wheelchair now, regardless of whether you caused that injury to them or not. It's a sick world, and people will do anything to achieve personal gain, or get financial support however they can, from whoever they can. Just like if someone tried to rob you at gunpoint and you shot them instead, they lived, and they sued you in a civil suit because you injured them.
An unconscious person, or someone incapable of making rational decisions (a child without a parent in the immediate area, a dellusional person) is deemed to agree to treatment via the implied consent doctrine.
The person that pulled the victim from the car is not being sued because she asisted/treated/moved (at least as far as I can tell from the news report) the victim without her consent, but that her actions were not covered under what is considered California's Good Samaritan law because moving her was not considered a "medical action" and that her actions were allegedly negligent.