Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on January 6, 2013 at 12:17am

Foremost, what is this non-FF job he works for? Depending on the type of job he does, there could potentially be a liability issue and it truley depends on his actions taken.

 

For the most part I would think Good Samaritan laws would protect a person looking to render aid in good faith, as long as it is reasonable care to training. For instance such skills limited to basic ABCs, CPR stuff etc, but not delving further into skills like needle decompression, chest tube, etc.

 

When it does come to Good Samaritan laws, the protection is only for those folks who are essentially off duty or a trained type of bystander...such as a person trained in CPR etc. The difference with being Off Duty does matter for someone who may be trained as an EMS provider, nurse, etc, because they do have the option to either render aid or not, and they can't exceed their skills and so forth. If they are ON Duty, the Good Samaritan laws won't cover, because there would be a duty to act.........for instance if one is working on an ambulance and come across an accident scene, they have a duty to act. (unless already with a pt....yet most would stop and radio in the call, depending on severity of their pt).

 

For our dept, we have had off duty FFs stop to render aid etc, but they are not required to do so at all. In the vast majority of such cases, once crews arrive on scene the off duty person is released. In the event they may be utilized or care to their skill level, such as paramedic, is needed, they would be put on overtime and are essentially considered ON DUTY if that is needed.

 

 

He took the write up but cited in his written response that as an EMT he has a duty to act under state law and if liability is such an issue, why did he pay for everyone else to have CPR training? because they are covered by the good sam law and that insulates him?

 

The aspect of being an EMT and having a duty to act for the most part is incorrect. As I mentioned above, an EMT only has a duty to act if they are ON duty and acting as an EMT. There is a common fallicy that one is required to stop etc, or having a FF or EMT license plate or sticker is a requirement to stop is not true.

 

There has been such talk and so forth in the past with having such plates etc, issued, but for the most part, there is no requirements that are valid REQUIRING off duty personnel to stop. For one, a spouse, friend, family member, etc could be driving the vehicle, or the person may have had a couple drinks, or whatever. Basically it is difficult to enforce such rules so they essentially don't exist, it is just a misconception that because one has trainig they are required to stop, they aren't.

 

As for the CPR aspect, that would also depend upon the company and the management. Such training could be viewed for the company or depending on the job, it could be a requirement. Whatever the reasoning for the company to sponsor CPR, it is really not applicable here....considering your friend already mentioned the EMT aspect...which is beyond CPR.

 

He wanted a written order from his boss telling him that he is not to treat anyone while he's working. The boss refused and threated to write him up for insubordination and he let it go

 

Having such an order would be nice to have in place if that is the company decision, however not required. I believe you are in Florida, correct?, if so, that is a right to work state.....which means the management can stipulate whatever the hell they want. So if the boss doesn't want such responses from company employees on duty....that is the decision and there really is nothing that can be said against it. However, if that is the company decision, your friend also has no obligation to render aid as an EMT either, there is nothing requiring them to do so off duty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russ on January 6, 2013 at 11:25am

thank you for responding...he works a job in a warehouse that moves stuff from one side of the buinding to the other for delivery nothing to get excited about and an employee had some chest pain. he did BLS with his own jump kit and had all baseline info for EMS who transported.

his boss said that he should have let professionals (the VFD that covers the area) handle it and he should have done nothing

florida is a right to work state but that is not the issue here, he's wondering why his boss would object to an employee who happens to be an EMT to do what he's trained to do and if he wants everyone except those that are CPR certified to do nothing, he (and i) are just not the kind of peoople that just wont stand by and watch somebody die

he did what i would have done because if he lets a person go and it got out that management doseent want employees to intervene beyond CPR...i guess he wanted the letter just to make his boss think about it a little

i agree that management can do what they like but doing the right think (in my opinion) is never the wrong thing. if i pass an accident, i'll call 911 to see if they have the call but if i see a person down, i'm gonna grab my jump kit like he did and give a look...thats all

again i thank you for your time in responding and he's gonna do what the boss tells him to do (which is what i told him to do-the boss is the boss)

but time goes on, memorys fade and sooner or later its gonna happen again and if the boss asks him " hey, joe's head is hurting, can you take a look at him?" i hope he says..."call an ambulance" because the boss is going to say, "arn't you an EMT?"

i thought you were worried about "liability"?--LOL

based on the last question i posted on FFN  i sometime think i need to be careful what i write here because i sometimes ask a question and create an issue

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Norm Tindell on January 6, 2013 at 12:25pm

Perhaps he should ask his boss's boss what he thinks of the liability exposure his company would face if he and other employees stood around and did nothing.

I must say it sounds like the employer is not the type of company I'd want to work for anyway. I'd be looking for another job. I agree with you about doing the right thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timothy John Dodson on January 6, 2013 at 1:36pm

I think that he did the right thing. If anything, his boss should have thanked him and consider his EMT training as a company asset, not a liability. Just my thoughts on the matter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kate landreth on January 6, 2013 at 2:55pm

Some laypersons don't understand what is in our scope and what is not. For example, I was working an EMS standby and a player went head first into the ground and lost brief conciousness during a tackle. As we began the assessment/treatment/package, the referree and both coaches said I could not do what I was doing because I was not an "MD". Pretty sure a C-collar and backboard are within the scope of an EMT-B, however, we spoke to one coach later and reassured him it was not out of line. Now, if your buddy proceeded to administer ALS drugs that could be a liability. I worked for a non-FF company where a manager thought only the fire dept could administer an Epi-pen and that anyone trained outside the site FD (but maybe a vol FF/EMT) would create a lawsuit. Again, it was a matter of understanding the limits for different levels of care.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on January 6, 2013 at 4:37pm

If he works in a warehouse, I don't see where rendering aid would then be considered a liability for the company, unless there are policy and procedures in place. It could depend on the scope of care rendered as well, especially if meds like aspirin, nitro, or even O2 is given. Not saying that is what happened, getting some vitals etc I wouldn't see as a big deal, but it does depend on what the management is concerned with. This does seem to be more of an education standpoint for the manager but, I agree with Norm in that if truly concerned about future circumstances, he can ask his boss as to why it would be a liability.

 

However, I would caution pursuing such things too far, because it appears your friend is not aware of the Duty to Act aspect as an EMT. Basically if he believes that he has a duty to act because he is an EMT, then why wouldn't the boss believe there would be a liability issue for the company as well? The only time there is a duty to act is if one is working in that capacity.

 

I mentioned the right to work aspect because if one feels compelled to address the issue, there can be reprocussions if the management basically said to not act as an EMT while at work. They have that say and regardless of what people want to think or how they would handle things and so forth, this is the rule handed down, violate at your own risk, so to speak. If at work outside your dept or departmental capacity, there is no duty to act.

 

IMO, this is an incident specific situation that boils down to some misconceptions on both sides. I don't see this as a broad question type of thing, since most employers wouldn't take issue with such actions. I can't stress enough the misconception that many have that they are always "on duty" especially as a volunteer and they have a "duty to act" because they really don't.

 

Personally, for your friend, I would recommend letting things settle down a bit and perhaps before the next time the company holds a CPR recert, to pose the question of rendering aid (beyond just CPR) and to have the instructor delve into the liabilities and Good Samaritan laws etc. That may help clear things up a bit. It may also help to again let things settle down, and ask the boss where the concerns are for liability issues from the company standpoint.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moose on January 9, 2013 at 10:14am

I honestly think the laws have taken away one very important thing from us...and thats being human.  People are afraid to help someone anymore due to liability and law suits and people who are suing people for doing so...it makes me sick.

Ironically enough, something not exactly like this but similar in meaning; I was on my way to work this morning and on an exit ramp from I-90 I saw a car off the road into the snow trying to back out, but they were stuck.  It was on an extremely dangerous corner and if someone came around too fast they would loose control and hit this car with a woman and her 9 year old son in it.  So, being the firefighter I am I stopped, grabbed my reflective EMS jacket and asked if they were ok, they were fine, I offered them to sit in my car further down the road where they would be safer but the snow banks were jamming the doors closed and they couldnt open them.  So I went further down the road and flagged the traffic waiting for the police to arrive.  Another guy with a pickup truck and a chain stopped to help as well and he was able to chain the car out of the snow with me flagging the traffic.  Afterwords I talked to the other guy and thanked him for helping us out and he said that right before christmas he stopped to help another stranded motorist and the police arrived on scene and ticketed HIM with a $200 fine!!!  They said the area they were in was under contract by AAA and by this guy pulling the car out they lost that business so HE got ticketed for it...but he still pulled her out this morning because we both felt they were in danger if they waited for the tow to arrive.  And I would help anyone, anywhere, anytime if they needed it.  I cant stand by and watch someone suffer or die because I am afraid of lawsuits, I am trained and I will use the training to help.

This world is too far gone, too many lawsuits for stupid shit, too many people suing each other instead of helping each other, too much hate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Summers on January 9, 2013 at 5:13pm

I am not going to ask what company this individual works for, but this sounds a lot like my employer, lets just call them the "largest telecommunications company in the world". If I used any of my "after hours" skills while on the clock, I would receive an immediate write up. HOWEVER, I am a union employee and I would have the means to fight not "letting someone just lay there and die". If your friend is a union member, I would suggest, STRONGLY, that he fights the write up.

As far as the Good Samaritan law, it covers you up to your scope of care. If he only provided BLS, then legal he is covered.

NOW, on the other hand, the real liability come into play if the "victim" or their family learns that your friend is an EMT and did nothing. Then both he could be held liable AND his employer could be held liable because their policies would not allow the EMT to help. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on January 9, 2013 at 7:35pm

NOW, on the other hand, the real liability come into play if the "victim" or their family learns that your friend is an EMT and did nothing. Then both he could be held liable AND his employer could be held liable because their policies would not allow the EMT to help.

I would doubt that. Regardless if one is an EMT, if they are not on duty and acting in the capacity of an EMT (IE on the ambulance, or on the clock with the EMS provider) then there is no duty to act. This is often a misconception that is often seen when it comes to such certifications. Most people would offer their help, but if they are not on duty and if they aren't going beyond the scope of training for the area, or their skillset, then they are covered by Good Samaritan. If they choose not to respond or render aid, they can not be held liable, because they have no duty to act if they are not working as an EMT and not on duty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moose on January 10, 2013 at 12:39pm

But what about volunteer EMS providers?  Aren't they "on call" or "on duty" 24/7? (Unless drunk, out of the area or otherwise unavailable lol)

I was always told that duty to respond meant as soon as you decided to render aid you were on duty and responsible, good samaritin laws are there to cover you if you stopped to render aid and could not help or something happened to the patient while in your care.  Just questions and not jabs, its been 6 years since my last card expired and I have not dealt with this stuff in quite a while.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on January 10, 2013 at 2:23pm

Moose,

It is more of a misconception with the 24/7 aspect. Regardless if it is the fire or EMS side when it comes to volunteering, there really is no "On duty 24/7" because it is a decision to respond or not. Whereas if you have a volunteer signed up to cover a shift or you have career personnel on duty, then there is a duty to respond and intervene, the individual choice is taken away.

 

So in the case of being an off-duty EMT, the only time there would be a duty to act is if the EMT either called or radioed to their service that they would respond (if it is their service responding). The caveat being is they have to be in the same jurisdiction that the service they volunteer for, covers. This is the really only way that they would be considered "on duty" and thus beyond the scope of Good Samaritan laws.

 

Another thing to consider is when an EMT is on-duty, by actually being on the clock of their service, they are operating under the control of a medical director, by a caveat of their license. So if the EMT is off duty and out of their EMS service's area, then that medical control may not be for the same area and thus and EMT would be operating outside their medical control.

 

I am no lawyer by any means, but these are common misconceptions associated with being an EMT. Again, most people who do these services will tend to render aid, but the caveat that they *must* because of their training, is not so.

 

A different way of looking at this is looking from a different perspective. A nurse could also render aid, but they would be covered under Good Samaritan, but couldn't be held liable if they didn't stop or help. Their license tend to fall under their scope of a medical director as well, typically in a clinical setting. They would have no duty to act for say a car accident outside the clinic's parking lot and the nurse was leaving for lunch. They have no duty to act to stop and render aid.

 

So if going by Anthony's assertions, of victim or family learning you were a EMT and didn't render aid, substitute nurse for EMT. Under the same circumstances, say family or the victim saw a nurse leave a clinic and didn't render care, that nurse can't be held liable, because there was no duty to act. If the victim was brought into the clinic, now there is a duty to act...get it?

 

In a doctor's perspective, and anyone who had a doctor stop on a scene, they also really have no duty to act. Although there have been a few cases where a doctor would give medical direction. In such case, then the doctor is accepting care of the patient and would have to maintain care throughout.....hence you don't see too many doctors getting involved.

 

For those doctors who choose to stop, say for a carr accident, if they are remaining within scope of the basics that are covered by Good Samaritan, they are not liable for the patient. This is also why a doctor can cede patient control to a lesser service level of say an EMT basic or paramedic and not be liable. So if this works for a doctor, then why shouldn't it work for an off duty EMT? So there really is no duty to act for an EMT who is not working directly with their affiliated service.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moose on January 10, 2013 at 6:56pm

Thanks John, I also talked to a buddy of mine who rides PT ALS for our county and he reminded me of another issue to remember too; if you are a volunteer who likes to wear flashy "look at me" coats with EMT badges and patches all over it and your agencies name on it as well you could be in trouble for not helping.  If someone sees the coat and you walk right by without rendering aid they will attack your agency and say their members refused to help someone, so if you advertise you are an EMT be prepared to help whoever needs it.

Personally thats why I wear a plain job shirt with no EMS patches, just my name and level of firefighter embroidered.  Ive seen too much bad stuff and its crammed up there in that small cranial vault I have, now I am all too happy to just drive the bus and carry the stretcher.

Thanks for the refresher, like I said its been a while since I went over any of the legal stuff, and around me there is never any call to have to use it, just small town life with people helping people and no law suits to be seen, I bet the cows that get tipped every weekend wish they could su though!

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page