BOSTON - A federal report on the deaths of two Boston firefighters didn't look at autopsy results for the men because state officials refused to release the records at the request of the victims' families.
Paul Cahill and Warren Payne died in August 2007 at restaurant fire in the city's West Roxbury neighborhood. Boston media have cited unnamed officials as saying toxicology tests showed Cahill was drunk and Payne had cocaine in his system. Those tests have not been made public.
A spokesman for the state medical examiner's office says the autopsy reports were not handed over to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health because the state lacked the "clear legal authority" to do so.
A federal investigator said the reports may have shed more light on the fire.
Of course;
We wouldn't want to jeopardize, contaminate or prejudice any possible future litigation now, would we?
It's no wonder that good, solid conclusions and recommendations cannot be made when you see the lack of information that isn't shared between entities.
The results have already been made public once.
Sorry; but the cat is already out of the bag.
Permalink Reply by Dave on November 13, 2009 at 8:09pm
Sorry Art, our own BOI came up with the same recommendations plus many more. The niosh report was wasted paper. Infact the toxicology report is like finding Hoffa! The FD don't have it, the union don't have it nor does the city...so who has it, if there is even one to have!
Dave:
When the story first broke; can't remember if it was the Globe or the Herald, but it was reported that BAC was .27 in Cahill and levels of cocaine in Payne. Where did they get it? If they made it up, then I would have expected a lawsuit by the families against the newspapers. Somebody has it. The coroner? And maybe that is why it is suppressed?
That's why I said that it has already been made public at least once.
If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
Can't make something an issue that is already an issue.
And I don't have to remind you of the PSOBs ramifications.
If found to be true, benefits could be denied to the families.
Sad, but true.
And I am in no way saying that the families shouldn't get the benefits.
The rules of PSOBs are what they are.
TCSS.
Art
A person can have a .27 BAC and still function; such a person is an alcoholic. This should not be viewed as a disparaging or insulting term, rather a description of an ugly, terrible disease that an estimated 1 out of 13 adult American suffers from.
We all know one, but not because of drunken behavior. Such a person can function normally UNTIL the supply of alcohol is cut off; then the problems begin. Withdrawal symptoms such as extreme hypertension and delerium tremens take over until the person resumes drinking, receives treatment, or dies.
I have lived with an alcoholic, and I can vouch for the fact that it is possible to be totally unaware of the problem for years.
So when I first read about the newspaper claim that one of the FFs had a high BAC, I wasn't surprised. I assumed he was the one out of 13. Teachers, engineers, accountants, firefighters, police officers, mechanics - one out of 13, statistically. It's a disease - nothing more, nothing less - just like Crohn's disease, diabetes, and cancer.
The FF may have struggled with this for years, and of course HIPAA laws are designed to keep such information confidential. I would think this extends beyond death.
I also thought the report issued by the BFD was better than the NIOSH report though I can't say why.