Should they be liable or not?

[akflightmedic]

I don't know how I missed this story last year but here is a follow up going through the legal system now. I posted 3 or 4 cases like this that happened last year and evidently I missed this one. Does anyone have the original story or information because I am making a on of assumptions just based on what is printed in this link.

(New London-AP, Nov. 20, 2006 6:46 AM) _ A lawyer for the Stonington Volunteer Ambulance Corps is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a man who was mistakenly declared dead after he was struck by lightning.

Kevin Crandall, a North Stonington man who was struck by lightning and mistakenly declared dead by emergency medical technicians is suing, claiming that lack of treatment at the scene left him with brain damage.

On May 31, 2005, Crandall, a mason and blues musicians, was struck by lightning while building a stone wall. Emergency medical technicians from the Stonington Volunteer Ambulance Corps determined Crandall was dead and covered him with a blanket and did not try to resuscitate him.

However, minutes later, police Sergeant Keith Beebe leaned over Crandall and noticed he was still alive. Crandall was then rushed to a nearby hospital for treatment.

The lawyer for the ambulance corps says it should not be liable for failing to notice that Crandall was still alive.

[Ridryder 911]

There are probably more details that we do not see. As well as many jokes, being a mason and blues singer struck by lightning....

Everyone should had been taught there are "special" circumstances of prolonged period of time to do resuscitation.. "cold water drowning, hypothermia, electrocution.. etc.. I am very skeptical on electrocutions unless they are really fried... and then I will be careful and assess in detail before proclaiming death.

R/r 911

[NREMT-Basic]

I agree with Rid that there are probably details of this call to which we are not privy. However, just given the facts as presented in this new clipping, it would certainly seem that the responding EMS crew would me liable for neglect. I know that there are alot of suits filed agaionst EMS crews by people looking to make money any way they can and that many of these cases are completely unfounded (for example the medic with the service that I did my clinicals with that was sued for emotional damages and actually investigated criminally for accidentally brush against a female patients breast as he worked to secure her to the cot).

Granted I am a Basic, but even at my current level of training, we were taught that we cannot "declare" death. That a person who is coding must be treated with due dilligence until such time as a physician can declare clinical death. That being said, we were also taught that there are several presumptive signs of death which allow a crew to call for the coroner and stand by until his/her arrival and take no measures to aide the patient. Of course there is "if you cant do compressions and ventilations in the same location" this is a presumptive sign. We were also taught the obvious grey matter in the hair test.

It would seem that absent any of these presumptive signs of death, the ems crew described in this article is guilty of all of the signs of neglect: 1. A duty to act 2. A failure to act upon that duty 3. the patient is injured and or ill 4. the steps taken, or more accurately not taken, lead to a worsening of the patients injuries or illness and led to an overall decline in the patients condition and/or caused the patients death.

All of the above being said, I wouldnt want to be a member of this crew.

[NREMT-Basic]

I agree with Rid that there are probably details of this call to which we are not privy. However, just given the facts as presented in this new clipping, it would certainly seem that the responding EMS crew would me liable for neglect. I know that there are alot of suits filed agaionst EMS crews by people looking to make money any way they can and that many of these cases are completely unfounded (for example the medic with the service that I did my clinicals with that was sued for emotional damages and actually investigated criminally for accidentally brush against a female patients breast as he worked to secure her to the cot).

Granted I am a Basic, but even at my current level of training, we were taught that we cannot "declare" death. That a person who is coding must be treated with due dilligence until such time as a physician can declare clinical death. That being said, we were also taught that there are several presumptive signs of death which allow a crew to call for the coroner and stand by until his/her arrival and take no measures to aide the patient. Of course there is "if you cant do compressions and ventilations in the same location" this is a presumptive sign. We were also taught the obvious grey matter in the hair test.

It would seem that absent any of these presumptive signs of death, the ems crew described in this article is guilty of all of the signs of neglect: 1. A duty to act 2. A failure to act upon that duty 3. the patient is injured and or ill 4. the steps taken, or more accurately not taken, lead to a worsening of the patients injuries or illness and led to an overall decline in the patients condition and/or caused the patients death.

All of the above being said, I wouldnt want to be a member of this crew.

[1EMT-P]

There are always two sides to every story & without having all of the information it's hard to say...