EMTs under fire after woman, baby die

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

poresofkohn

Pulmonary Padawan
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
Yes, these EMTs had a duty to act, regardless of their position in the department. They're still EMTs. This is such a shame. I could not imagine any of my old partners failing to respond while off-duty.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
These guys are hosed. They've clearly already been set up to take the big fall. They'll be lucky if they don't do time. They wouldn't have been able to avert the inevitable but if they'd have laid on hands they'd just be getting sued instead of fired and charged. The mayor and the news anchors clearly already know enough to have reached verdicts.
 
These guys are hosed. They've clearly already been set up to take the big fall. They'll be lucky if they don't do time. They wouldn't have been able to avert the inevitable but if they'd have laid on hands they'd just be getting sued instead of fired and charged. The mayor and the news anchors clearly already know enough to have reached verdicts.

Hard to imagine how anyone will be able to spin this in any sort of favorable way. These guys are hosed - as well they should be.
 
Hard to imagine how anyone will be able to spin this in any sort of favorable way. These guys are hosed - as well they should be.

Should they be? Hard to say without any real info other than the accounts to the media (and the lawyers) by the family and the posturing by the politicians.
 
Should they be? Hard to say without any real info other than the accounts to the media (and the lawyers) by the family and the posturing by the politicians.

So explain to me how their actions could be seen as reasonable.
 
There are a lot of possibilities since we don't have any hard info. We don't know what they were told or what they said back. The family make it sound like they were told "Attention! There is a young, pregnant, female, asthmatic in distress who needs medical assistence!" when they might have been told "Hey! There's a problem in the kitchen!" We don't know if they were EMTs or two mechanics driving an ambulance back from the maintenance yard.

We do know that there is a financial incentive to have been victimized and wronged by employees of a deep pockets entity such as the city.
 
There are a lot of possibilities since we don't have any hard info. We don't know what they were told or what they said back. The family make it sound like they were told "Attention! There is a young, pregnant, female, asthmatic in distress who needs medical assistence!" when they might have been told "Hey! There's a problem in the kitchen!" We don't know if they were EMTs or two mechanics driving an ambulance back from the maintenance yard.

We do know that there is a financial incentive to have been victimized and wronged by employees of a deep pockets entity such as the city.

Mechanics generally aren't suspended for not rendering aid. I think you're grasping at straws.
 
I would still like to know more details. It is still not totally clear if a duty to act existed from the information I have seen. Here is a link to a video that explains a little more. The regulations quoted start at about 1:04 and could suggest if interpreted so, that somebody who is associated with an agency could fall under the duty to act. From what I understand, they were in uniform, but I am not sure if they were actually on shift and getting paid to provide a service. Additionally, from what you guys read, does simply being associated with a service mean duty to act even when off shift? I think it could be interpreted as such.


http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/news/video_news/lawyer_defends_emts.html

In any event, these guys will need a very compelling story or things will get ugly for them. Likely will regardless of their story.
 
There are a lot of possibilities since we don't have any hard info. We don't know what they were told or what they said back. The family make it sound like they were told "Attention! There is a young, pregnant, female, asthmatic in distress who needs medical assistence!" when they might have been told "Hey! There's a problem in the kitchen!" We don't know if they were EMTs or two mechanics driving an ambulance back from the maintenance yard.

We do know that there is a financial incentive to have been victimized and wronged by employees of a deep pockets entity such as the city.


he he he:D
 
According to this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7184215

#1)They both are dispatchers (although currently "certified" emergency medical technicians) and union rules prevent them from responding to medical emergencies.

#2)One of them did indeed call for an ambulance right away.

#3)Had no gear at all, but didn't even take a look at the patient.

This is a tough one, whether there is a 'duty to act' or not. Frankly if it was me I'd like to think that I would've at least done a quick assesment on the pt. However, if I had been told not to respond to an emergency and the initial communication is poor ("Janie is up to her usual act agian") I can't say what I would do. But lets be honest, what are you going to do with zero equipment anyhow? The article goes on to say that the AG is considering if criminal charges are necessary, if the above is true I can't see what they'd be charged with.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We do know that there is a financial incentive to have been victimized and wronged by employees of a deep pockets entity such as the city...................I see patients and families who lie to me all day long.
>
According to Kadiatou Diallo, that incentive amounted to $61million. Funny how she settled for $3 million. I guess the book royalties will make up for it. I wonder how much the 2 criminals in the car with Sean Bell (also a criminal) will get since they're suing for $50million.
 
According to this:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7184215

#1)They both are dispatchers (although currently "certified" emergency medical technicians) and union rules prevent them from responding to medical emergencies.

#2)One of them did indeed call for an ambulance right away.

#3)Had no gear at all, but didn't even take a look at the patient.

This is a tough one, whether there is a 'duty to act' or not. Frankly if it was me I'd like to think that I would've at least done a quick assesment on the pt. However, if I had been told not to respond to an emergency and the initial communication is poor ("Janie is up to her usual act agian") I can't say what I would do. But lets be honest, what are you going to do with zero equipment anyhow? The article goes on to say that the AG is considering if criminal charges are necessary, if the above is true I can't see what they'd be charged with.

Interesting. The video clip mentioned that they hadn't been on the road for several years. Still....
 
This all seems a little bizarre.

When you watch the second video, it shows a printout of the dispatch call. The news program highlights a portion that shows the EMTs telling dispatch that the patient is going into cardiac arrest. However, the witnesses said that they didn't go to the back room to assess the situation?

Maybe because the EMTs had no medical gear, the bystanders took that to mean that they were not offering the care that the public expects from EMTs. In a huge chaotic panic, everyone's memory is going to be a bit fuzzy. This would only get worse after you learn that the patient has died and your emotions start to surface...?!
 
Last edited:
http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=11533

The saga continues. Interesting defense. It seems that we now have several stories and lots of details being thrown around.

Regarding the arrest, earlier reports stated the EMS crew that eventually responded had problems and did not bring some unspecified equipment to the call? The recording of the EMT talking about coding may be one of the responding EMT's?
 
I think its annoying how the media always calls us "ambulance drivers" and "rescue workers". But now suddenly, when we are 911 dispatchers who just happen to be EMTs in New York City... we're EMTs. :mad:
 
were the EMTs on duty or not? to me that seems to be the most important detail and one that the news reports keep leaving out. If they weren't on duty I don't see how they were obligated to intervene.
 
were the EMTs on duty or not? to me that seems to be the most important detail and one that the news reports keep leaving out. If they weren't on duty I don't see how they were obligated to intervene.

They were dispatchers who were obviously not on the clock. They were EMT certified (as required by the FDNY), but haven't seen a patient in years.

But... the question is - are EMT-B's duty bound?
 
They were dispatchers who were obviously not on the clock. They were EMT certified (as required by the FDNY), but haven't seen a patient in years.

But... the question is - are EMT-B's duty bound?

Not all EMTs are duty bound at all times. However states and other EMS certifying agencies or EMS employers may have policies outlining when their people are duty bound. There was some discussion earlier that NY may have such a policy that does create a duty and may apply to this case.
 
Top