Should public employee status shield EMS against lawsuits?

At first glance, the headline on this story about reenacting a state law to protect EMS providers and other public safety providers from frivolous lawsuits sounds like a great idea.

In reading the article, given how the circumstances were described, it seems appropriate to resurrect a limited liability shield. A patient calls 911 and collapses. EMS responds and can’t gain access to the residence. There’s no response at the door. With no police on scene, they clear the call. The patient dies.

It’s tragic but on occasion things like this do happen.

Still something didn’t ring true for me with that one paragraph summary of events. So I did a little digging. I found an earlier filing of the appeal decision, which contained significantly more details on the case. Rather than fully describe the facts as presented in this legal document, I invite readers to take a closer look for themselves starting on page three.

I believe that there were real issues on how the call was processed from initial intake to field/dispatch communications. I am interested to know whether protocols were in place to direct dispatchers how to transfer calls from one dispatch center to another. I also want to know what procedures were in place to force entry into a private residence.

Granted there were a couple of external factors that could have affected the decision making process of all who were involved, namely a major system activation in anticipation of severe weather. But it seems very suspect that some personnel did not perform their duties when they needed to be done. And because of that, others could not make proper decisions about what to do in the face of uncertainty.

Reinstatement of the public duty law may still be a good concept to go after, but not in this case. There seems to be enough information in this case which points to negligent acts in the system.

Lawsuits are conducted to recover proper compensation for the loss of a family member who might have had a chance to survive in this specific situation. In this case, a lawsuit would be far from frivolous.

EMS attorney David Givot previously commented on the Illinois Supreme Court decision that essentially abolishes the so-called "Public Duty Doctrine." Read Givot's take on why striking down the Public Duty Doctrine is not an attack on EMS and share your take on the case in the comments. I want to hear from you.

from EMS via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/1VJQIXE