To read the original article published on EMS1.com, click here.
In a 35-page decision, a federal arbitrator ordered Clearwater, Fla., city officials to rehire former paramedic Trevor Murray, pay him lost wages and help him get his paramedic’s certification reinstated.
Murray was one of two paramedics who ignored a 9-1-1 call in March of 2005, after recognizing that the emergency call came from a frequent flier.
Mannie Garza, JEMS news director and editor of the EMS Insider, wrote an article in the July 2006 issue of JEMS giving Murray, along with his co-worker Mike Jones, a big thumbs down for their actions. In that article, Garza wrote, “The public calls. EMS responds. Period.”
Martin O. Holland, the federal arbitrator handling this lawsuit, felt a little differently about this case. He wrote in last week’s decision that Murray’s action was a poor judgment, at best, but his action was not just cause for termination.
Murray’s case has stimulated a lot of debate among those in the EMS field, and EMS1.com wanted to know how its readers felt about this issue. We posed the question: Do you feel Clearwater (Fla.) city officials were warranted in firing paramedic Trevor Murray, or do you agree with the arbitrator’s recent decision?
Here are a few of the responses that we received:
Not having all the facts of this story, I do believe that both parties were at fault — city fire for not having a human resource person investigate Murray’s failure to act and Murray for failing his duty to act for a person in need whether the 911 call was false.
— Sgt. Scott L. Fick, BS, NREMT-P
As a professional EMT for 32 years in an Urban EMS system in New Jersey, I think that anytime an employee refuses to respond to a call it is a violation of his/her duties. No matter what the circumstances, you do not know for sure if the caller is lying. I have had numerous calls to regular patients who abused the system, but still needed immediate help on some of the calls. As an EMS provider, it is your duty to provide the best care you can to all patients. You should not judge any patient that you deal with.
— Gary Olive
I think that the paramedic in Clearwater made a decision based on history with this same patient, but it happens to all of us. There are always the calls you don’t want to go on because you know the address and have been there a million times — but that is what we get paid for! It is just part of the job. I think that the paramedic should have been disciplined, but I don’t know if firing him was the answer. It sounds like the management had a gut reaction about the situation and didn’t think about the whole picture.
— Jennifer Klinger, Orlando Fire Department
I fully support the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate Paramedic Murray. This country has to come to grips with the idea that EMS and the 911 systems are emergency systems. Known abusers should not only be removed from that system but should be prosecuted by their local enforcement entities.
The question is always returned what happens if these people have a true emergency. My answer would be to read the story of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf.” There is a huge parable in this story for EMS and the public. The public has to understand that resources are stretched in all communities. There needs to be community education in what constitutes a “true” emergency call and what constitutes “crying wolf.”
— Robert Hutson, NREMT-P, KS MICT, MO EMT-P, MPIC
Regarding the article on the firing of Trevor Murray by the city of Clearwater (FL), although there were significant errors and omission found in the city’s system of investigating such incidents, this is one where it should not have any bearing on the ultimate outcome. One of the fundamental principles of entitlement to protection of the public’s safety is that every call is answered, every alarm receives a response — a direct and personal response.
Murray and Jones chose not to respond and clearly understood the circumstances under which they made their choice. Murray now claims he has been “humbled” by the episode, and would never do the same thing again. He knows he was wrong. He knew he was wrong when he did it.
I should stipulate that the safety of the public as an entitlement is of a higher order of priority than the entitlement of union-supported firefighters and paramedics to decide when and whether or not they will perform their duties.
I have been in the position of Chief Geer in having had occasion to discipline a firefighter/EMT who refused to respond to an alarm. I was only a line officer at the time, and it was in the volunteer sector of a combination department. There was an adequate response, but the member in question was assigned to the unit and position (by his own choice as a volunteer), and so I wrote a cursory report and summarily suspended him for 15 days.
Later, when I was department head I had occasion to fire one career employee (not for the same infraction) and spare another. Neither involved refusing to respond to an alarm. I would have done the same thing had I been in Chief Geer’s position. The matter of whether or not one’s livelihood might be jeopardized is not relevant. Executing one’s sworn duty to the public is the only matter at issue.
It further appears that there may be some vindictive purpose in the pursuit of overturning this (fundamental) decision by the Fire Chief, as the chief has been accused of denying employees time to attend union meetings as per an agreement referred to in the article. One has nothing to do with the other. Any firefighter, EMT, paramedic or other similar caretaker of the public should fire himself for such dereliction, if no superior takes the step.
Conversely (and I again speak from personal experience), if I were (and I was) directed by my fire chief to not respond to an alarm because, in his judgment it was going to turn out to be a nuisance call, I would, at my own peril, ignore his direction and respond anyway (he did and I did). This is comparable to events in the fictional story “The Caine Mutiny,” where a ship’s crew starts to operate in direct contradiction to their captain’s orders because those orders were contrary to regulation, law and tradition. Because of the common-law basis of my action, I was not even placed on charges, but merely further strained an already less-than-ideal chain of command relationship.
Long story short: if you don’t like your job, find a different one. Lord knows the line outside the door is long enough.
— John Kenyon, Laguna Niguel, Calif.
I think the termination was totally warranted. Choosing not to respond to a 911 call is extremely risky! Since we are not on scene, we cannot know for certain that the call is not legitimate. We can guess based on history, but eventually the boy who cried wolf lost his sheep to a real wolf. It is not for us to decide if a caller truly needs medical care. We are paid to render it when requested.
— Richard Platt, B SSgt 59 TRS/MSTENE
Thank God! The city of Clearwater made a colossal mistake in firing Trevor Murray and Mike Jones. They are both excellent at what they do. I responded to many calls with both gentleman and was always relieved when it was them on the rescue, because I knew they could handle anything that came our way. And I’m thrilled to hear that the arbitration went in Trevor’s favor. Hopefully Mike’s will have the same outcome.
— Jennifer Kahrs, NREMT-P
Clearwater officials had ZERO justification to discipline these two paramedics; they shouldn’t have been requested on the call in the first place. This should have been a police-only response, without tying up and misusing fire department resources.
— Steve Loftin, Yukon, Okla.
To read more reader responses, please click here.