Doctor Sues PD and Private EMS

[Jwade]

We discussed this story on the forum about a year ago. I used to work in Kern County. Don't remember all the details, but basically a medic showed up and the cop told him, "He's just drunk. He's going with us." The medic made patient contact but apparently also thought he was just drunk. He didn't do a proper assessment. One story I heard was that the medic claimed he could not do a proper neuro assessment because the patient was handcuffed. I'm not sure if this is really what he claimed or if that was the case then why he didn't just get the cop to uncuff him. Again, this is just what I heard and I'm not in on all the facts of the case.

The medic took off, and sometime later a nurse from the hospital came by because she recognized the doctor. She realized he was having a stroke and had PD call for another ambulance.

The lawyers will still have to prove that the delay in medical care would have made any difference in this guy's outcome. That doesn't seem very likely if he had a bleed, which is what I heard he had. Regardless, it's really tragic that this highly skilled doctor has become disabled. If I remember correctly, he was specialized surgeon of some kind.

Just wanted to elaborate a little more on how " Negligence" is actually proven in a court of law. Just finished up a law class, so this is pretty fresh in my mind!

Negligence claims require the plaintiff to prove 5 elements:

1. Duty of care owed to the victim, and

2. Breach of that duty of care, and was the

3. Actual Cause of the damages or injuries, and was

4. Proximate Cause of the damages or injuries, and

5. Damages or Injuries resulted.

Duty of Care owed?

The basic premise of the law of negligence is that each person has a duty to conduct their affairs in a manner which avoids an unreasonable risk of harm to others. But one doesn’t owe a duty of care to just anyone. Courts look at fairness and public policy to determine whether a duty is owed, also whether there’s a special relationship e.g. doctor/patient, attorney/client, also whether there is a statute that creates a duty of care to that person, e.,g. traffic laws. Generally, a promise made to another person is not sufficient to create a duty of care.

Breach of Duty of Care?

The standard by which a person's actions will be measured is that of a hypothetical reasonably prudent person. The standard is thus objective, but is also flexible by assuming the reasonably prudent person has the knowledge of the defendant and is viewed in the circumstances of the defendant as of the time of the objectionable conduct. If the conduct falls below the minimum standard of care, then a tort will be found to have been committed. Thus, a specific intent to commit the tort is not required -- merely to have failed to exercise that degree of care that would have been exercised by a reasonably prudent person.

Actual Cause?

Courts use the “but for” test where one person is at fault. If more than one person is at fault, then courts generally use the “substantial factor” test.

Proximate Cause?

Even if the defendant owed a duty of care, and breached that duty, and actually caused the damage or injury, the defendant must also be the proximate cause. That means that the actual consequences were reasonably foreseeable.

Damages or Injuries?

Courts require more than emotional distress. They require some evidence of property damage or physical injury.

Here are some special negligence doctrines:

1. Negligence per se. A statute or ordinance establishes the duty of care. A violation of the statute or ordinance constitutes a breach of this duty of care.

2. Res ipsa loquitur. A presumption of negligence is established if the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality or situation that caused the plaintiff's injury and the injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for someone's negligence. The defendants may rebut this presumption.

3. Dram Shop Acts. State statutes that make taverns and bartenders liable for injuries caused to or by patrons who are served too much alcohol and cause injury to themselves or others.

4. Social host liability. Some states make social hosts liable for injuries caused by guests who are served alcohol at a social function and later cause injury because they are intoxicated.

5. Guest statutes. Provide that a driver of a vehicle is not liable for ordinary negligence to passengers he or she gratuitously transports. The driver is liable for gross negligence.

6. Good Samaritan laws. Relieve doctors and other medical professionals from liability for ordinary negligence when rendering medical aid in emergency situations.

7. Fireman's rule. Fire fighters, police officers, and other government employees who are injured in the performance of their duties cannot sue the person who negligently caused the dangerous situation that caused the injury.

8. "Danger invites rescue" doctrine. A person who is injured while going to someone's rescue may sue the person who caused the dangerous situation.

9. Common carriers and innkeepers. Owe a duty of utmost care, rather than the duty of ordinary care, to protect their passengers and patrons from injury.

10. Landowners. Landowners (and tenants) owe the following duties to persons who come upon their property:

a. Invitees. Duty of ordinary care

b. Licensees. Duty of ordinary care

c. Trespassers. Duty not to willfully and wantonly injure trespassers.

Respectfully,

JW

[Chief1C]

I always make the cop who wishes to recall us, sign the trip sheet. If they won't permit us access to the patient, which has happened, I make them write that they accept full responsibility for the life of the patient, by denying EMS care. Literally, only once did that not get us access to the victim.

If need be, replace responsibility with liability.