Objection!

Well, as we all know, so many people in the healthcare field think they’re attorneys when they aren’t driving ambulances, inserting a Foley catheter, or writing an order.  Couple that with the pack of lemmings that comprise so many of us online and you’ve got a recipe for a massive EMS legal f–k up.  (I’m only censoring myself for those of my two or three minions who access this from work.  Remember to sign up for minion status.  The Dark Side offers milk, cookies, and Halliburton stock.)

So, today, EMSers on Facebook have been blowing up Facebook over a three year old news report buried on the JEMS website.  See the following panic inducing link:  “Florida Verdict Could Change Way Paramedics React to Calls.”

But other than alarming the EMS world, what does it really mean?  Fortunately, minions, you have a paramedic who’s admitted to the Texas Bar to help you understand what this story means to you.  In short – ZILCH.  Nada.  Nothing.  Don’t change anything you’re doing based on reading this article.  Definitely don’t change anything you’re doing based on Facebook reactions to this article.  (For those of you who haven’t read the Facebook posts, they either say “OMG!  Zombie trial lawyer apocalypse!” or “What was the jury smoking?”)

What does this story teach us?  First of all, as I’ve said when teaching, you never want your patient care judged by twelve people who couldn’t figure out how to get out of jury duty.  (Think Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson.)   Second, there was almost definitely some ego involved on behalf of the EMS system.  They could’ve settled and avoided a trial, but for some reason, they decided to go to trial even after the hospital and doctor(s) settled.  Too many EMS systems start to believe their PR and think that they are as great as their PR says.

Next, let’s talk about the applicability of the law in this case.  It’s a principle of law, regardless of the jurisdiction in the United States, that trial court decisions (a.k.a. the jury verdict) are not binding decisions on other courts.  Only appellate court decisions are binding on the lower courts under their jurisdiction.  In other words, a Florida trial court decision shouldn’t have any impact on a California EMT or a Massachusetts paramedic.  Only a United States Supreme Court decision truly represents the “law of the land” that applies to all of us.   Even if a Florida appellate court upheld this decision, it would be based on Florida tort law and only apply in Florida.  So, in other words, no big deal really.  Most states’ tort (a.k.a. “personal injury”) law is state-specific.

I haven’t seen any followup articles about any appeals of this case.  Appellate courts base their decisions on how the law should be applied and the decisions are made by judges rather than juries.  In most cases, judges are less likely than juries to be swayed by a sympathetic response to a tragedy.  In other words, the argument that someone is to blame (and has to pay) for a child having cerebral palsy is much more likely to be successful with the twelve people who couldn’t get out of jury duty than a panel of experienced judges who are law school graduates.

I would take home a couple of lessons from this case, though.  First, you never know what a jury will do.  Second, there’s a strong argument for carrying your own personal liability insurance.  In a trial where every defendant is pointing blame at the other, having insurance is a good idea.  Insurance provides a way to pay for a verdict in case you are found liable.  More importantly, liability insurance comes with a “duty to defend.” In brief, that means your insurance carrier will supply you with a lawyer to defend the lawsuit. And finally, there’s something to be said for covering your a– when you’re faced with a sticky situation.  I don’t know all the facts in this case, but if I was a medic and given such an unstable transfer, I’d have at least contacted a supervisor and tried to punt the issue up the food chain.

And on a final note, shame on the local newspaper and JEMS for such a headline.  The headline is inflammatory and completely misrepresents the legal principles involved.  And to the armchair lawyers who think they know the law based on some continuing education class or some war story from a grizzled older paramedic or nurse, law school applications are down.  You might have a chance of getting into law school these days.

Comments

  1. A lot of hysteria in that article. Not surprising from JEMS, which long ago lost any relevancy to what actually happens to EMS. Not surprising that a reporter who probably isn’t bright enough to avoid jury duty would listen to so called experts and pass along misinformation.

    Sadly not too surprising that people on Facebook would over react to a local jury decision. Maybe I’ll log on and post a picture of a cat to calm them down.

    • You’re right about JEMS losing relevancy, which happened about the same time Jim Page died.

      • I would date it precisely to the minute that James O. Page ceded day to day control to A.J. Heightman. It’s been downhill ever since. Several times it’s struck bottom, but ole A.J. broke out the shovel.

  2. Michael Hatfield says

    You sure know how to take the fun and hysteria out of things…….;)

  3. Steve Pike says

    I read the article (yes, it was linked on someone’s fb post). My first thought was that there must have been evidence presented at trial that wasn’t discussed in the article. Without a thorough review of all of the relevant testimony, you can’t draw any conclusions about the case. The article was woefully lacking.

    • Michael Hatfield says

      Steve, you have no idea how much truth there is in your post. Well, you might…but either way, having read a few articles on it, the POSTED article left some very pertinent information out.

      Anyway, I said all that to say, “Well said”.

  4. Old medic you know Wes says

    Bravo again Wes! Keep up the strong work.

  5. Old medic you know Wes says

    Oh, and about that retainer fee…..:-)