Every so often, a case comes along that forces EMS professionals to confront an uncomfortable truth: sometimes the greatest legal risk isn’t what you fail to do medically … it’s what you choose to do personally and well outside the scope of patient care.
The lawsuit filed in Onslow County against former EMT Megan Jenkins is one of those cases.
According to the lawsuit filed by the family, Jenkins allegedly used her personal cellphone to photograph a critically injured patient on Aug. 25, 2025, while that patient was still alive and suffering from life-threatening injuries. The patient later died. The lawsuit claims those images were taken and shared without any legitimate medical or governmental purpose, and that the county failed to respond appropriately once it learned of the conduct.
If those allegations are true, this is not a “gray area” case. It is a bright-line violation — and one that carries serious civil liability exposure for more than just the EMT.
| MORE: Lawsuit accuses former N.C. EMT of taking photos of dying patient
There is no clinical justification here
As evidenced by so many of my EMS1 columns, my legal career is essentially predicated on defending providers who find themselves on the wrong end of the law because of the difficult judgement calls they were forced to make in the heat of a moment. This is not that scenario.
There are very few and limited, legitimate reasons to document patients visually in the field: telemedicine consults, medical documentation under agency policy, or evidentiary preservation when coordinated with law enforcement. But those uses are tightly controlled, agency-approved and should never be done using personal devices.
If you were in EMS in 1996, when the internet was in puberty and discussion boards and chat pages were basically the Wild West, it was not uncommon to see [scanned] scene photos of the most graphic nature. None of us thought anything of it.
But it is 2026 and we all know better.
In 2026, taking photos out of curiosity, for personal retention, much less for sharing? That’s inexcusable legally and professionally, and it’s definitely actionable. More to the point: it is just … not wise [read: dumb].
North Carolina law is not ambiguous
This case sits squarely at the intersection of privacy law and constitutional protections. North Carolina — like every other state — recognizes causes of action for invasion of privacy, including intrusion upon seclusion and appropriation of likeness. Photographing a patient in a vulnerable, life-threatening (or any) condition without consent can easily satisfy the elements necessary to make a case, especially when there is no legitimate purpose tied to patient care.
The plaintiffs in this case take it a step further and reference violations of the North Carolina Constitution. While that may sound abstract, it’s a clever and strategic move. In certain circumstances, plaintiffs can pursue constitutional claims when no adequate state remedy exists, particularly involving government actors.
And then there’s negligence and gross negligence. Gross negligence in North Carolina is defined as willful or wanton conduct showing a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. If a jury believes an EMT knowingly violated a patient’s dignity for no legitimate reason, that threshold is not difficult to meet and the damages can be astronomical.
HIPAA is only the beginning
Everyone in EMS immediately thinks of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act when cases like this surface — and for good reason.
Unauthorized patient photos, especially when shared, can absolutely constitute a clear violation of HIPAA’s privacy rule. But here’s what many providers misunderstand: HIPAA is a regulatory framework. It triggers fines, employment consequences and agency penalties. It does not, by itself, create a private right of action for damages.
That’s why plaintiffs’ attorneys build cases like this around state tort law — negligence, emotional distress, privacy violations — and then layer in the underlying conduct as evidence of wrongdoing. In other words: HIPAA may get you fired. State law may cost you everything else.
The county’s problem: Supervision and response
The lawsuit doesn’t stop with the EMT. It also names the county, and that’s where the exposure grows. According to the complaint, the county allegedly learned that Jenkins used her personal cellphone but failed to properly investigate, secure the device, or notify the patient’s family for nearly two months. If proven, that delay becomes its own liability issue.
Government agencies have certain obligations when misconduct is discovered: preserving evidence, initiating internal review, and mitigating harm are chief among them. Failing to do so can further support claims of negligent supervision or even ratification; essentially arguing that the agency tolerated or mishandled the misconduct. It doesn’t have to be true; it just has to look true enough to a jury.
The illusion of “harmless” conduct
One of the most dangerous mindsets in EMS is the belief that certain actions are “no big deal.” A quick photo. A text to a colleague. A moment of curiosity. But as I’ve written repeatedly, intent is not the standard — impact is.
You may not intend harm. You may never share the image widely. But the law doesn’t require malicious intent to impose liability. It requires a breach of duty — and in patient privacy cases, that duty is clear.
Career and life consequences are real
Even before this case reaches a courtroom, the professional fallout is sure to be significant. State EMS boards take privacy violations seriously. Certification actions, including suspension or revocation, are common in cases involving unauthorized patient images.
What’s worse, the disciplinary stress is just the beginning. Once litigation begins, and public records are created, the entire process itself becomes an absolute nightmare of depositions, discovery and severe reputational damage for the provider that lives long after the case is resolved.
A simple rule that prevents complex lawsuits
I’ve said this in multiple columns, and it applies perfectly here: If it doesn’t directly benefit patient care, and isn’t explicitly authorized by policy, don’t do it! No personal phones. No unofficial documentation. No exceptions made in the moment because “this is different.” Because legally, it isn’t different.
Final thought
There are many EMS cases where the defense hinges on nuance — split-second decisions, evolving scenes, incomplete information. EMS defense lawyers can work with those. This is not one of them.
If the allegations here are proved true, this case will turn on a much simpler question: Did the provider violate a patient’s privacy without justification? And if the answer is yes, the legal consequences are going to be painful.
