By Stephanie Maniscalco
The Missouri Lawyers Media
View from ‘The Legal Guardian’ David Givot says, “The decision itself is not that surprising to me because it would have been easy to conclude in this case that EMS was a governmental function, and that would entitle the city — as with governments in most jurisdictions — to immunity as long as the paramedic acts in good faith in a non-grossly negligent manner. “I think what struck me most is that the court at first glance to me opined that the EMT should not be held to the same standard as doctors. I find that very surprising because patient care is patient care. “I get nervous whenever a court lowers the bar for providers. In the field, granted, as opposed to a clinical setting, incorrect treatment can be more likely simply by virtue of the environment. When in an operating room, intubation is much cleaner and somewhat less stressful than out on the streets or in a darkened alley somewhere. “However, the fact the EMT in this case missed the trachea should not be overlooked. To me, providers may take away the message from this ruling that you could screw up even more, but as long as you acted in good faith in a non-grossly negligent manner, you can escape liability and that is the wrong message.” David is a practicing Defense Attorney in Los Angeles and a former paramedic. Read his columns at The Legal Guardian. |
ST. LOUIS — Emergency medical technicians who work for a city may be entitled to official immunity, according to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
The Eastern District agreed in a case of first impression that EMTs are entitled to immunity on a case-by-case basis because they must often make judgments similar to those made by police officers when responding to emergency calls.
Lee Richardson sued the City of St. Louis and Bryan Burrow, an EMT employed by the city, after her husband died when Burrow responded to an emergency call and inserted an endotracheal tube into the man’s esophagus instead of his trachea.
The plaintiff relied on an earlier Missouri appellate case holding that doctors at a state hospital were not entitled to official immunity in a negligence action. The Eastern District, however, was not convinced that EMTs should be treated similarly to doctors.
“We agree that the judgment EMT’s use when treating and transporting persons with emergency medical conditions is more comparable to the judgment police officers use when responding to an emergency than that of physicians treating individual patients in a medical institution,” wrote Judge Patricia L. Cohen for the court.
“An emergency medical responder’s use of professional judgment and discretion in rapidly-evolving emergency situations with limited information is the type of circumstance in which official immunity is intended to provide protection. Given these considerations, we find that EMT’s in emergency situations, even if providing medical treatment, are distinguishable from physicians in medical institutions,” the court concluded.
City’s case
Also on an issue of first impression, the Eastern District found city-owned emergency medical services to be a governmental function, entitling the city to sovereign immunity in Richardson’s wrongful death case.
The Eastern District found that the trial court properly dismissed the city, and the court noted that the city’s imposition of a fee for such services is not determinative of whether the city is performing a proprietary or governmental function.
The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action against Burrow. The court found the facts of Richardson’s petition insufficient to describe the scope of Burrow’s duties as an EMT for the city or the extent to which he was required to exercise professional expertise or judgment.
The case is Richardson v. City of St. Louis and Bryan Burrow.
Copyright 2009 Dolan Media Newswires