EMS1.com News

January 31, 2012

Court rules on medic vs. cop altercation in Idaho

EMS provider's claims against city stemming from altercation with police officer fail

The Municipal Litigation Reporter

GOODING COUNTY, Idaho — The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho held that a city is entitled to the dismissal of an emergency services employee's claims stemming from an altercation he had with a police officer.

An altercation ensued between P.J. Curtis, a Gooding County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider, and Andrew Lovell, a city of Gooding police officer. Specifically, Curtis claimed that, while he was in the process of beginning to transport a patient to the hospital, Lovell approached the ambulance, opened the door to the rear compartment, ordered Curtis to exit the ambulance and told Curtis they "needed to talk." According to Curtis, once he exited the ambulance, Lovell threatened him, verbally abused him and physically struck him in the chest.

Curtis reported the incident to his immediate supervisor and also to Denise Gill, the director of Gooding County EMS. Gill then met with Jeff Perry, the Gooding chief of police. Lovell was later suspended, pending completion of a Jerome City Police Department's investigation. Ultimately, Lovell resigned from the city of Gooding Police Department.

The Jerome City Police Department issued a written report of its investigation of the altercation. The Jerome City Police Department concluded that both Curtis and Lovell acted inappropriately; however, without additional witnesses or evidence, a formal finding of misconduct by either individual (beyond the admissions of both Curtis and Lovell) could not be sustained.

Thereafter, Curtis sued the city, Perry and Lovell (in his capacity as an employee of the city of Gooding only) alleging: (1) assault against Lovell (individually and in his capacity as an employee of the city of Gooding and the city of Gooding; (2) battery against Lovell (individually and in his capacity as an employee of the city of Gooding) and the city of Gooding; and (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Lovell (individually and in his capacity as an employee of the city of Gooding), Perry (individually and in his capacity as an employee of the city of Gooding), and the city of Gooding. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The district court granted the defendants' motion as to Curtis' assault and battery claims against the city of Gooding since the city was immune from liability under Idaho Code §6-904(3). However, the court denied the defendants' motion as to Curtis' assault and battery claims against Lovell in his official capacity. Material questions of fact existed in the record which precluded the entry of summary judgment as to Lovell.

The district court also granted the defendants' motion as to Curtis' §1983 claims against Lovell (in his official capacity), Perry (individually and in his official capacity), and the city of Gooding. Contrary to Curtis' argument, there was insufficient evidence of an alleged ratification of Lovell's conduct by the city. As to Perry, Curtis failed to establish facts which would have made him individually liable and, further, he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Comments

The comments below are member-generated and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EMS1.com or its staff.

Jeremy Barker Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:49:27 PM cops have a job to do but if the cop hit emt then he should be intilted somethin.

Anthony Messer Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:37:01 PM The officer could have waited till after the call. As paramedics, our responsibility is to the patient. As far as the assault, people shoot at cops...eho comes when that happens? Paramedics do...all differences aside. Where is teamwork if we pull against eachother?

Greg Shadwick Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:00:42 PM I agree with Anthony, we as PUBLIC service professionals need to be able to work together and resolved differences in an adult manner. We should do as Anthony suggests and settle our differences away from calls involving the public.......

Steve Treimer Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:49:50 PM isn't it enough that the officer resigned? just had to sue to prove a point.... that he felt entitled to taxpayer money.

John Lewis III Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:32:59 PM lol...it's crazy to me. afte all the courts said the officer resigned...sorry he admitted his guilt. the city doesn't want to pay. that's all

Yedidya Ben-Avie Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:19:17 PM It's articles like these that make me wonder what isn't being said here. Did the officer give a reason for pushing the EMT? Did the officer resign as an omission of guilt, or because of pressure from his superiors? What might the EMT have done to provoke or deserve the confrontation, and was it really just a quick thing or an actual fight? Suffice to say, there is a lot of information that we do not have, which makes further speculation kind of pointless.

Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:09:07 AM The officer delayed care necessary for the PATIENT! As usual, the patient bears the burden for two class A personalities who BOTH used poor judgement. The medic should have told the officer to follow them to the ER and discuss it there (backed up by his supervisor). If there was no danger to anyone's life, the officer should have just let patient care continue and deal with it later. Would be interesting to know what the reason was for the officer taking the medic away from his patient.

Andres Pedraza Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:22:30 AM I cannot wade through all that legalese in the article, how about using plain English? As it stands I have no clue as to what the medic gained or did not gain as a result of the lawsuit. The only thing clear to me is that if the cop touched him, it's assault and also endangered the patient by delaying care.

Mike Moses Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:12:15 PM There is no teamwork if one member of the team feels that he can lord it over the other, so police believe that you MUST be on their team but they don't necessarily need to be on yours. Law enforcers feel that their authority outranks EMS and behave accordingly. What gives them this notion is the iron hanging on their hip and the badge on the chest. It bespeaks of the ability of life or death and the consequence of arrest if you don't agree. It is an authority much abused and too often seen. I suppose most of us have worked with ex-law enforcers and have some notion of what goes on in their minds that warps them toward authoritarianism in dealing with others. My most telling anecdote is that in training they are indoctrinated with the notion of "always being in control"; thus, when dealing with others in an official capacity, anyone who disagrees with them is challenging their control and requires escalation (cuffs, violence?) to regain control.

Charles Henke Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:16:13 PM What amazes me is that these two 1st responders had to have this happen in the 1st place. I was told early in life by my uncle (a retired cop) that there are 3 sides to every story. (What both sides says is the truth, and what ACTUALLY happened.)

Jake Stein Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:44:22 PM The officer resigned. Isn't that enough satifaction for this Paramedics. Sounds like a Paramedic who just wants to make the public pay and pad his bank account. He probably thinks this is a get rich quick plan. The patient should sue both of these idiots for their unprofessional behavior.

Colin Corbett Friday, February 03, 2012 5:55:57 PM I may be wrong here and please correct me if I am but I believe this article is in response or is a follow up to a previous article about this same incident. As far as I know there are YouTube videos of this altercation taking place and captions to explain the back story. I plan to do some research on this topic and strongly suggest you all do the same. Also regardless of the events that lead to the incident patient care is and always should be the #1 priority of every public servant out there, not just the EMT and Paramedics! Pt care should never be interrupted especially for something like this.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:33:51 AM I'm not sure what caused this whole thing, but I know from personal experience the Cops think that they can do what they want & that what they say goes. I remember in the early 90's fights between the NYPD & FDNY over who ran an auto accident scenes. (As far as who extricated the patients) I also have had cops try to tell me how to do things on different calls and when I asked what medical background they had they would catch an attitude. I think the police should leave EMS to EMS, firefighting to firefighters, and they handle what ever laws needing to be enforced!