Skip to content


Court Upholds $3 million Cut From New Jersey Firefighter’s Verdict

A New Jersey firefighter who was awarded $3.5 million by a jury last year for a whistleblower violation will have to settle for $500,000, according to a three judge panel from the Superior Court Appellate Division.

Ridgewood firefighter Kevin Reilly claims he was passed over for promotion to lieutenant because he reported that his superiors violated safety requirements. In 2012 a superior court jury agreed he was retaliated against, and awarded him $3.5 million in damages.

That verdict was subsequently reduced to $500,000 by Judge Menelaos Toskos who characterized the award as “shockingly high.”

Reilly appealed the reduction and yesterday the Appellate Division affirmed Judge Toskos’s decision calling it “comprehensive and thoughtful.”

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health, Promotions

Tagged , , ,

State OSHA Citations Resurface Against Buffalo Fire

State OSHA citations issued against the Buffalo Fire Department six months ago have resurfaced as collective bargaining heats up between the city and the firefighters’ union.

The citations include two serious violations:

  • emergency escape and self-rescue components not being inspected monthly
  • lack of annual medical exams for hazmat techs

According to WIBV.com, the city has been accruing fines of up to $200 per day for the last six months for these violations. The citations were issued by the New York Department of Labor, Division of Safety & Health.

Firefighter union reveals violations

Posted in Labor Law, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Idaho Firefighter Alleges Lung Problem Due to Negligence

An Idaho firefighter has filed suit claiming that a he and his crew were negligently exposed to a harmful irritant during a remodeling project at their fire station in April, 2011.

Jay Hamann,  a firefighter for Gowen Field Fire and Crash Rescue, claims that the exposure to the chemicals caused him to suffer from reactive airway dysfunction syndrome, a pulmonary condition similar to asthma. The chemicals were part of a reflooring process being performed by contractors.

The suit names Hamilton & Spear Painting, Northcon, Inc. (the general contractor for the project), Wall 2 Wall Floorcovering, the State of Idaho Military Division, the Idaho Army National Guard, Gowen Field Fire and Crash Rescue, and Gowen Field fire chief William Mattravers as defendants.

The suit was originally filed in Idaho state court, but was removed to federal court by the US Attorney, representing Chief Mattravers because he is a federal employee. The suit alleges negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.

Here is a copy of the complaint.   Hamann v Hamilton & Spear

Posted in Civil Suit, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health

Tagged , , , ,

Scottish Fire Rescue Service Facing Criminal Charges Over LODD

The death of a Scottish firefighter four years ago has led to criminal charges being brought against his department. FF Ewan Williamson of the Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service was killed on July 12, 2009 in Edinburgh while fighting a fire in a bar. During the fire twenty people were rescue from apartments above the bar.

Williamson’s family filed a 700,000 pound sterling ($1 million) damage claim against the department last year, claiming watch commander Tim Foley failed to recognize the warning signs of a “backdraught”, and did not provide Williamson sufficient rehab time between entries. They also allege that ventilating windows in the bar contributed to Williamson’s death.

Williamson is believed to have made an initial entry with his crew into the building and come out to replenish his air supply. It was during his second entry that an evacuation order was given. While everyone else made it out safely, Williamson radioed Foley "I'll be there in a minute, boss, I think I'm stuck in a toilet." He followed that transmission by another reporting: "I'm stuck. I'm stuck." His body later was found in a bathroom.

According to pleadings submitted by Williamson’s family:

  • "On ascending the stairs for the second time, he was confused and suffering from heat exhaustion… he turned towards the toilets instead of towards the entrance of the bar"
  • "Ventilating the fire by smashing windows … made the task of those fighting the fire in the basement more dangerous"
  • "Mr Foley failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the deceased and by his failures caused the death of the deceased."

According to news reports Williamson’s family has offered to "freeze" their civil claim if the Crown Office agrees to prosecute “anyone” over his death.

Two formal charges were filed against the fire department on April 9, 2013, one for breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the other for breaching Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, by failing to carrying out risk assessments.

The charges have been brought against the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who took over the Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service on April 1, 2013.

More on the story, including video coverage.

Posted in Civil Suit, Criminal Law, International, LODD, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Wrongful death

Tagged , , , , , ,

First Amendment and the Press’s Right to Take Photos

 

I received a question that was posted as a comment to one of the stories on firefighters interfering with the public’s right to cover news worthy events. I have paraphrased what was asked… and turned it into today’s burning question:

Is safety a legitimate reason to exclude the press from parts of an emergency scene? Excluding the public, yes, but I don't think safety should be grounds for excluding the press. According to all of the PIO classes I have attended safety cannot be used as a reason to exclude press. PIO's are being told that the only exclusions allowed for the press (leaving out the question of "who is the press") are (1) private property (trespass), (2) interference (reasonable work zone) and (3) exclusion from a crime scene.

Not that I don’t believe you, but is there a statutory provision or case law that you are using when you tell us we can exclude the press because of safety concerns?

Answer: It sounds to me like members of the press may have been involved in teaching your PIO classes, which is entirely understandable. They have an invaluable perspective to share with the fire service – and we need to listen. However, along with that perspective comes a certain bias in favor of the media that the law does not share.

So let me get this straight: according to these “instructors” we cannot deny the press access to a location based on safety concerns? Seriously? That means I could be advancing a hose line into a structure and have a news camera team along side of me? I cannot order them to stay outside? Or entering a hazmat hotzone in level A we might find a cameraman sauntering in? And we’d have to rely on the crime scene or work zone exclusion? I’m not even sure we can enforce the trespass exclusion – that is up to the property owner.  What if the property owner gives the news team permission to trespass?  Seriously? Your instructors told you we cannot stop the press over safety concerns?

Let’s assume your “instructors” are correct (they are not but play along). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear – the right to film and cover the news is not limited to the media – it extends to everyone … EVERYONE… so if we have to allow the media to go somewhere that is unsafe… then the public has the same right…  an 18 year old with an iPhone camera has the exact same rights to cover the news as a fully credentialed NBC news team.

OK… enough of the fun stuff… let’s get to the law. The issue is really cut and dried. We can establish and enforce a safety zone for both the public and the press. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) the US Supreme Court said “the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.” In other words, the press’s right of access is no greater that the public’s right of access.  That means if we can deny the public access to a certain area out of concern for the public safety, we can deny it to the press as well.

If you are following this discussion… you will notice another interesting question is raised: if we give the press access to a scene (think the TV show COPS), then can any 18 year old with an iPhone demand the same access??? …. The answer to that is going to have to wait til next time.

Posted in Burning Question, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, First Amendment, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics, Social Media

Tagged , , , , ,

Conn Volunteer Fire Companies Battle OSHA

A number of volunteer fire companies in Connecticut are working to block the passage of legislation that would bring them under the jurisdiction of CONN-OSHA.

The legislation is aimed at reversing a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling issued in 2011. That ruling, Mayfield v. Goshen Volunteer Fire Company, 301 Conn. 739, 22 A.3d 1251 (Conn. 2011), declared that volunteer fire companies are exempt from state OSHA regulation because they are not political subdivisions.

The Goshen case created an anomaly for volunteer fire companies in Connecticut. They are exempt from federal OSHA jurisdiction because are quasi-public entities due to their fulfilling a public function and use of tax-payer funds. The Goshen ruling made them exempt from state OSHA regulation as well. It thus creates a situation where municipal fire departments in Connecticut (career, combination and volunteer) have to comply with OSHA but volunteer fire companies do not.

The linked article does a pretty good job of explaining a complex issue: the interplay between state and federal OSHA, and the difference between the three types of states. It is worth explaining here as well.

  • Approved plan states: the state enforces OSHA in both the public and private sectors. The state must agree to enforce federal OSHA regulations/standards in the way that federal OSHA requires. In exchange the federal OSHA underwrites up to 50% of the costs AND the state gets to keep the fine money.
  • Non-approved plan states: federal OSHA has jurisdiction over the private sector employers and the state may or may not enforce OSHA regulations against public sector employers, but if the state does enforce OSHA regulations against public sector employers they do not do it in a way that meets the requirements of federal OSHA
  • Public sector only approved plan states: states like Connecticut where federal OSHA has jurisdiction over private sector employers and the state enforces OSHA against public sector entities in a way that meets OSHA’s requirements.

Approved plan states and public sector only approved plan states are the states most likely to cite and fine fire departments that fail to comply with OSHA regulations. The enforcement mechanisms used by most non-approved plan states vary widely but do not usually result in penalties.

However, the article is somewhat misleading in an important repect. It implies that the Goshen ruling applies to “virtually all” volunteers in the state and that the volunteers’ status as unpaid is somehow relevant to the decision.  It is not. The key point of the Goshen ruling was that a volunteer fire company as an employer is not a political subdivision and thus is exempt from CONN-OSHA’s jurisdiction. In the court’s words (with some paraphrasing in brackets):

The fire company plainly does not fall within … [the] core definition [of "the state and any political subdivision thereof...."]. Indeed, the law governing nonstock corporations provides that such corporations " shall not include towns, cities, boroughs or any municipal corporation or department thereof." General Statutes § 33-1002(8).

Hence CONN-OSHA lacks jurisdiction over safety issues in volunteer fire companies whether they relate to paid employees or volunteers. If the new law passes, if will become effective October 1, 2013. Here is more on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Labor Law, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics, Volunteers

Tagged , , , ,

Firefighter Claims Injuries Due To Lack of Bail Out System

 

A Kingston, New York firefighter injured in the line of duty last December, has filed a notice of claim stating that his injuries were the result of the department’s failure to provide him with a bail-out system.

Firefighters Thomas Metzger and Brian Renn were injured on December 29, 2012 they bailed out of the second floor window onto a porch roof, and fell to the ground because the roof was icy. FF Metzger claims his injuries were due to the  department's negligence in failing to issue personnel a bail out system.

While the story line is interesting, of even more interest is the reaction of Kingston’s  mayor, Shayne Gallo, upon reading the allegations. Please watch the video below for a little comic relief.

To understand what has transpired legally – all states have adopted laws called tort claims acts. These laws require that before an injured party can sue a governmental entity in tort, they must first file an administrative claim with the governmental agency. Such a claim is NOT a lawsuit – but it is a necessary step before someone can actually file suit.

The purpose of this step is to give the governmental agency the chance to review the allegations and possibly settle the claim before the case goes to court.

Posted in Civil Suit, Line of Duty, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Workers Compensation

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Buffalo LODD Suits Settle for $4.1 Million

It appears that a settlement has been reached in two separate lawsuits arising out of the LODDs of two Buffalo firefighters in 2009.

Lt. Charles W. “Chip” McCarthy, 45, and FF Jonathan S. Croom, 34, were killed on August 24, 2009 in the basement of a commercial building. Their families filed wrongful death lawsuits against the city of Buffalo, Mayor Byron W. Brown, former Fire Commissioner Michael S. Lombardo and the owners of the Genesee Street deli-warehouse.

Here are the links to the prior posts about the fire and the suits: October 17, 2010 and November 23, 2010.

The settlement calls for payments to the families of both firefighters totaling $4.1 million and health insurance coverage for FF Croom’s minor children. Lt. McCarthy’s children are adults. The agreement also calls for safety changes in the Buffalo Fire Department.

Attorney Thomas H. Burton, a former police officer who represents the McCarthy family, was quoted by The Buffalo News as saying: “Wrongful-death lawsuits are traditionally about money damages for surviving family members. Here, we went further and insisted on multiple safety procedures for firefighters in the future.”

Safety changes include:

  • Complying with the “two in, two out rule”
  • Assigning an accountability officer at “serious fires”
  • Improved radios, SCBAs and TICs

The settlement does not affect the suits pending against the building owners.

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, LODD, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Wrongful death

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Widow Alleges Non Line of Duty Asbestos Exposure Killed NY Firefighter

The widow of a retired firefighter has filed a second lawsuit over his death claiming it was related to exposure to asbestos. The kicker… she is claiming that the exposure occurred while he was working for a plumbing company, not as a firefighter.

Joseph Jaworski was a firefighter for 30 years for Amsterdam, New York before retiring in 1976. He also worked for A. Mormile Plumbing & Heating of Amsterdam.  Jaworski died in 2011 of mesothelioma, a type of cancer directly linked to asbestos. He was 83.

Jaworski’s widow, Josephine, filed the first suit back in 2011 naming more than 100 asbestos manufacturers and distributors as defendants. That suit was disposed of prior to trial, although the details are not known. The second suit was filed 2 weeks ago in state Supreme Court naming A. Mormile Plumbing & Heating. The suit alleges wrongful death, negligence and loss of consortium.

Part of the problem is that virtually all asbestos manufacturers and most potential targets of asbestos litigation have either gone out of business or been reorganized through bankruptcy.  In either event, relatively few can be held liable.

According to the Leader-Herald, one of the owners of A. Mormile, James Mormile, told reporters that Jaworski had to have worked for a predecessor of A. Mormile, which was created in 1985. That will likely be the company’s defense

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Line of Duty, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Workers Compensation, Wrongful termination

Tagged , , ,

Cal Fire Chief Charged with Vehicular Manslaughter Over Texting Related Crash

A chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has been charged with vehicular manslaughter for an accident that occurred last August.

Unit Chief Timothy John McClelland, 48, was charged yesterday in connection with the August 1, 2012 accident that caused the death of Gregory Francis Kirwin, 48. Chief McClelland was driving a Cal Fire pickup truck that collided with the rear of Kirwin’s vehicle, causing it to crash into the rear of a third vehicle. Kirwin died at the scene.

Prosecutors allege that Chief McClelland was texting at the time of the accident.

California law handles manslaughter in a rather unconventional way, dividing it into three categories in the same statute: voluntary, involuntary, and vehicular. Here is the statute:

California Penal Code 192.  Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

   (a) Voluntary…

   (b) Involuntary…

   (c) Vehicular– (1) …driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

   (2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence. …

California Penal Code Section 193 allows a vehicular manslaughter defendant to be charged with either a felony (Section 192 (c) (1) with gross negligence) or a misdemeanor  (Section 192 (c) (2) without gross negligence).

In Chief McClelland’s case, the news reports are somewhat conflicting in that they claim he was charged with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, but was only charged with a misdemeanor. He is scheduled to be arraigned on April 10, 2013 in Superior Court in San Bernardino.

Among his likely defenses will be that his texting was lawful under California’s texting while driving law because he was operating an authorized emergency vehicle.

California Vehicle Code Section 23123 and 23123.5 state:

23123.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving. …

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

and

23123.5.  (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voiceoperated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail….

(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

If the state cannot establish that Chief McClelland’s texting was unlawful, the manslaughter charge under CPC 192 (c) (2) would (in the absence of another unlawful act) most likely fail. Among the probable issues that will be in contention: was the pickup an authorized emergency vehicle (likely yes); was the text personal or job related; if the text was personal does the provision “in the course and scope of his or her duties” pertain to the nature of the text… or whether he was engaged in a work related activity while driving the vehicle. One could make the argument that to be guilty of texting while driving an authorized emergency vehicle both the subject of the text message AND his purpose for driving the vehicle would have to be personal. Of course the prosecution will likely argue the opposite… that in order to have a defense under 23123.5(e) both text message and the purpose of driving the vehicle have to be job related.

Lots to ponder….

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Criminal Law, Manslaughter, Occupational Safety & Health

Tagged , , ,

Illinois Firefighter Sues Fellow Firefighter for Injuries

An Illinois firefighter injured during a controlled burn has filed a negligence suit against a fellow firefighter and his fire department.

William J. Wirtel was injured on January 29, 2011 during a controlled burn in the Village of Washington Park when a pumper driven by Odell Smith drove away while still connected to a hydrant. Wirtel was struck by the hose.

The complaint alleges: “As a direct result of defendant, Odell Smith’s, operation of The Fire Engine, the hose line became taut and disconnected from the hydrant” and “As a direct result of defendant, Odell Smith’s, operation of The Fire Engine, the hose line struck plaintiff William J. Wirtel.”

The suit was filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court and also names the Washington Park Volunteer Fire Department. Wirtel claims his medical bills alone exceed $200,000, and is seeking an award “in excess of $100,000”.

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Civil Suit, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Volunteers

Tagged , ,

Staffing Now At Center Of Columbus Georgia Criminal Probe

Additional details are emerging about the police investigation of the Columbus Fire & EMS that we posted about last week. It appears the primary focus of the investigation relates to the staffing level of the first in engine at a fatal daycare fire in 2010, and whether documents were either falsified or removed.

The fire occurred on February 26, 2010, and claimed the life of 23-month-old Michael Dubard. Firefighters made numerous heroic rescues of other children during the blaze. A total of nine children were in the day care at the time of the fire, which was only allowed to care for six under state law.

The first arriving apparatus, Engine 7, was supposed to be staffed with five firefighters, but responded to fire with only three members. The reason for the discrepancy appears to be at the heart of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI)’s  search.

An internal Columbus Fire & EMS investigation concluded Engine 7 was missing two firefighters because the lieutenant was out with an injury, and minutes before the fire a battalion chief picked up a crew member to take him for a random drug test.

However, the GBI’s search warrant affidavit alleges that Engine 7 was understaffed because both missing firefighters had been taken for drug testing. The affidavit claims that fire department records were altered to show that only one was being drug-tested, while the second was out sick.

More on the story.

Posted in Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Evidence, Occupational Safety & Health, Open Records Laws, Staffing

Tagged , , , , ,

Wildland Firefighter LODD Prompts OSHA General Duty Citations

The death of a wildland firefighter in 2012 has prompted two administrative actions by OSHA, one a $14,000 citation against the Clearwater-Potlatch Timber Protective Association (CPTPA), and the other a Notice of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions issued to the U.S. Forest Service.

Firefighter Anne Veseth, 20, was killed on August 12, 2012 while battling the Steep Corner Fire near Orofino, Idaho. She was struck in the head by a falling tree and died instantly. Veseth was a college student working her second summer as a seasonal firefighter for the US Forest Service.

The Steep Corner Fire was being managed by CPTPA, but being fought through an interagency effort that included the US Forest Service. According to the Steep Corner Fire Serious Accident Investigation Report issued by the US Forest Service, CPTPA is a private sector entity described as follows: “Idaho law allows forest landowners to form timber protective associations to provide wildfire protection on their land. Timber protective associations are subject to rules established by the state. Each year, the State Forester certifies, and the State Board of Land Commissioners confirms, their qualifications to provide adequate protection. The associations’ objectives are to stop fires while small through quick and effective initial attack.”

The Serious Accident Investigation (SAI) report states: “After considerable review of the incident, including the leadership, qualifications, interagency cooperation, fuels, weather, incident management organization, and local policies, the SAI Team concluded that the judgments and decisions of the firefighters involved in the Steep Corner Fire were appropriate. Firefighters performed within the leaders’ intent and scope of duty, as defined by their respective organizations. The Team did not find any reckless actions or violations of policy or protocol.”

OSHA’s investigation into Veseth’s death reached a different conclusion, finding that both the US Forest Service and CPTPA violated the general duty clause. The general duty clause is an OSHA requirement that employers provide employees with a workplace that is “free from recognized hazards”.

While employers are expected to comply with all OSHA standards, the general duty requirement is a bit more complicated. Employers are required to take affirmative steps to mitigate recognized hazards even if those steps are not specifically mandated by an existing OSHA standard. This would include mitigating hazards that are recognized in the applicable industry as posing a safety concern to employees.

The CPTPA citation imposed $14,000 in fines for three related issues, each considered by OSHA to be serious general duty clause violations.

  • The first citation faulted CPTPA for not ensuring a safe working environment by allowing 8 of the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders for wildland fires to be violated, and for failing to mitigate 11 of the 18 Watch Out Situations. A $4,900 penalty was assessed.
  • The second violation alleged that employees were exposed to being struck by “hazard trees” while constructing fire line, a recognized hazard that was not mitigated. It also carried a $4,900 penalty.
  • The third violation alleged that firefighters constructing the fire line did not have fire shelters readily available, and that personnel constructing the fire line were wearing denim and work pants not rated as fire resistant. The associated penalty for these violations was $4,200.

OSHA also issued a Notice of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions to the US Forest Service, citing:

  • one serious violation for violating 7 of the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders and not mitigating 9 of the 18 Watch Out Situations; and
  • a second charge characterized as a “Repeat – Serious” violation for allowing employees to work in a location that exposed them to “recognized hazards …  likely to cause death or serious physical harm from falling hazard trees”.

Here is the OSHA citation for CPTPA: OSHA_CPTPA_Citation

Here is the OSHA Notice to the US Forest Service: OSHA_USFS_notice1

Here is the SAI report: Steep-Corner-Fatality-SAI

Incidentally, the SAI report is a good read even for structural firefighters. It confirms the widely reported account that the Montana based Flathead Hotshots refused to fight the Steep Corner Fire citing concerns over unsafe operations that their supervisors observed when they arrived. Among the concerns noted were: “communications, tactics, and hazard mitigation. …the need for better radio communications and professional fallers for hazard tree removal. They also question[ed] the gaps in the fireline as well as the lack of medevac sites and a medical plan.” The Flathead Hotshots informed the Steep Corner IC of their concerns and their decision to refrain from engaging in the firefight one day prior to Anne Veseth’s death.

The reply from CPTPA: “We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve got.”

Posted in LODD, Occupational Safety & Health, Wildland

Tagged , , , , , ,

Ohio FF Loses Monocular Vision ADA Case

An Ohio firefighter/paramedic who lost an eye in an off-duty fireworks accident, today lost a federal court lawsuit to get his job back.

Anthony Rorrer was injured in a bottle rocket incident of the 4th of July, 2008. Afterwards, he sought to return to work at the Stow Fire Department, but the department refused claiming Rorrer could not perform one of the essential functions of his position, namely driving emergency vehicles.

Rorrer filed suit in 2011 claiming the department violated the American’s with Disabilities Act by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation, namely: allowing other firefighters to drive. He also alleged a violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act and unlawful retaliation.

The key issues in the case came down to whether driving was an essential function of being a firefighter in Stow, and whether granting Rorrer permission to not drive would be a reasonable accommodation. The court ruled in the city’s favor on both questions finding that the ability to drive is an essential function, and allowing a firefighter the right not to drive would constitute an undue burden on Stow and Rorrer’s co-workers.

In the court’s own words:

While Rorrer opines, without evidentiary support, that it is highly unlikely that the need for him to drive would arise, the Court concludes otherwise. The very nature of Rorrer’s occupation mandates that he be able to immediately respond to emergency situations. In fact, lives depend on the ability of him and his crew to respond quickly to life threatening situations. Those situations involve risk not only to members of the general public, but also direct risks to those Rorrer works with on a daily basis. To the Court, it is clear that Rorrer’s admitted inability to drive in an emergency situation would place an undue burden on Stow and ultimately enhance the risk of harm to Rorrer’s co-workers. Further, the function at issue is clearly a business necessity. With three-man crews working, Stow must be ensured that all three firefighters can drive under emergency circumstances.

The good news is that Rorrer continues to serve as a firefighter in another department in Ohio.

Here is a copy of the decision. Rorrer v Stow Decision

More on the story.

Posted in ADA, Civil Suit, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health

Tagged , , , , ,

Armed Firefighters – The Debate Continues… Again

Today’s Burning Question: In our city we have the luxury of a police force nearby, however, just like us they are increasingly busy. Many times we wait a significant amount of time for an officer to arrive on a scene that may or may not be violent but the potential is there, so we stage. Also while I have never been shot at I have had many patients who turned violent after our arrival. That being said, I would not be comfortable with just any or all of our FF/EMTs carrying a weapon. Perhaps the answer is a few well trained supervisors that are armed and can be there to have the backs of their crews, allowing them to focus on patient care without the worry of a weapon being taken from them while providing care.

Another thought I haven’t seen much comment on is the possibility of non-leathal weapons (tasers). What do think?

Answer: We have discussed this issue numerous times over the years – and recent events have not changed my approach one bit.  I am not opposed to arming personnel but like any high risk activity we engage in – if we are going to do it, we have to do it right. The cost of doing it right may make it prohibitive for most departments but that should not be used as an excuse to do it wrong… half-assed… or recklessly.

Your suggestion about arming a few well trained supervisors may be a viable option in some jurisdictions. In a similar vein a number of state USAR teams deploy with their own force protection unit – complete with AR-15s and I think that is a terrific idea (having been the beneficiary of force protection from Georgia’s GA TF01 (GSAR) and Nashville’s TN TF02 during our deployment to Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina).

The challenge with armed supervisors – will they be there when you need them?

As for non-lethal weapons… I do not believe we should be discussing arming anyone without considering the entire force continuum that includes non-lethal weapons. Allowing folks to be armed without giving them a non-lethal option (equipment and training) is as good as telling them how you expect them to handle a dangerous situation. Even a lousy lawyer can make that case a slam dunk in the event a firefighter/medic were to use a firearm against someone.

For more on our previous discussions click here…  and here.

FYI – this question was posted on January 3, 2013 on one of the old threads from 2011 and it is of such import that it is worth reposting here!!!!

Posted in Burning Question, Occupational Safety & Health, Politics

Tagged , , ,

Apparatus Accident LODD Prompts Criminal OSHA Citation

The death of a volunteer firefighter who was responding to fire in Nipissing, Ontario has prompted criminal charges being filed against the fire department.

Firefighter Paul Nelson, 21, was killed on December 27, 2011 when the engine he was driving went off the road in a weather related accident. He was a college student at Nipissing University, and was alone in the pumper at the time.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour brought the charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act claiming that the Nipissing Township Fire Department failed to provide Nelson with enough training.

Also facing charges in connection with the accident is a contractor responsible for clearing the roads at the time of the accident. News reports indicate there were some 27 accidents in the area associated with snow and ice.

I am hoping to get some additional details on the nature of the charges. Here are the penalties listed for OSHA violations in Ontario:

Penalties

66.  (1) Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with,

(a) a provision of this Act or the regulations;

(b) an order or requirement of an inspector or a Director; or

(c) an order of the Minister,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than twelve months, or to both.

Idem

(2) If a corporation is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the maximum fine that may be imposed upon the corporation is $500,000 and not as provided therein.

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Criminal Law, International, LODD, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health, Volunteers

Tagged , , , , ,

Asthmatic Massachusetts Firefighter Terminated

A Lawrence, Massachusetts firefighter who was denied a disability pension for an asthma condition, has been terminated.

Tim Atwood, 49, a Lawrence firefighter since 2004, was terminated last week. He has been out of work since January 11, 2012, when he claims that exposure to diesel exhaust in the station caused a relapse of his asthma. Last March his request for a disability pension was denied. He had been on unemployment since August when his vacation and sick leave ran out.

Lawrence Firefighters, IAFF Local 146 have filed grievances on Atwood’s behalf, seeking to have him reassigned as a dispatcher. The department offered him a civilian dispatcher position, but at less pay than a firefighter.

The crux of Atwood’s problem is that he left the military as a “disabled veteran” due to asthma in 1996. Atwood claim’s the city knew about his asthma when they hired him. In addition his doctor says his present condition is significantly worse than it was in 1996 when he left the military.

Dr. David Christiani, a pulmonologist, wrote  “Mr. Atwood’s asthma was hastened, aggravated and exacerbated to the point of disability as a result of occupational exposure to gas, dust, vapors and fumes, particles and other materials as an active firefighter. He is now disabled from his work as a firefighter because of this and this disability is permanent.”

Atwood has already filed with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination and the union is vowing to challenge the termination.

More on the story and a related question: To what extent should a firefighter candidate’s pre-existing medical condition be allowed to become a factor in their hiring (Note: at present a pre-existing medical condition cannot even be considered unless the candidate cannot perform the essential functions of the job… with or without reasonable accommodation…. sorry … just to be precise).  And as a follow up is it fair that the taxpayers get saddled with the associated costs?

 

Posted in ADA, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, Line of Duty, Occupational Safety & Health, Pensions, Wrongful termination

Tagged , , , ,

California Firefighter Gets $425k Settlement For Disability Discrimination

The city of Merced, California has agreed to pay a firefighter candidate $425,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit.

Ryan Staiger was offered a job as a Merced firefighter in 2007, but was considered to be medically unfit due to a limited range of motion in his right arm. Staiger suffered an arm fracture as a teenager.

The city’s doctor and a private specialist said the limited mobility prevented Staiger from being able to perform the essential functions of being a firefighter. Staiger claimed that he was able to compensate for the limited range of motion by rotating his shoulder, and filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Commission.

The commission agreed with Staiger and a suit was filed against the city in Merced County Superior Court.  Following a judge’s ruling that the city violated Staiger’s rights, the settlement was reached.

Staiger now works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CALF FIRE.

More on the case.

Posted in ADA, Civil Suit, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health

Tagged , , ,

Ohio Firefighter Who Lost Both Legs Sues FD and Firefighters

An Ohio firefighter who lost both legs in a tragic on-scene accident has filed suit against a neighboring fire department and three of its firefighters.

Firefighter Josef Tadijanac of the Washington Township Fire Department, was pinned between two tanker-tenders on June 24, 2012 while operating at a fire. At the time Jefferson Township-Bellville Fire Department Tanker 121 was pumping water to Troy Township Fire Department Tanker 145. Tanker 121 suddenly moved forward, pinning Tadijanac.

The suit was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in October against Jefferson Township-Bellville Fire Department, Fire Chief Craig Roberts, Firefighter Scott Gerhart, and Firefighter Isaiah Finley.

The suit alleges that Gerhart and Finley were liable because they were operating Tanker 121 at the time. The suit also alleges that neither firefighter was properly trained.

More on the story.

Posted in Apparatus, Civil Suit, Municipal Liability, Negligence, Occupational Safety & Health, Volunteers

Tagged , , , ,

Helmets and My Stupid Idiotic Chief

Today’s burning questions (yes its plural): Part I: My chief is a complete and total stupid idiot. He refuses to issue me and the other guys that came on with me in my training academy new helmets despite the fact that (1) we have been on the job for 11 years; (2) we have never been issued replacement helmets; (3) NFPA standards require that the helmets be replaced after 10 years; and best of all (4) we know that he knows he is supposed to replace the helmets at the 10 year mark because the moron replaced our turnout gear (coats and pants) just before our 10th anniversary. What can we do?

Part II: My chief is a complete and total stupid idiot. He is insisting that we replace perfectly good fire helmets – helmets that there is absolutely nothing wrong with – just because they are 10 years old. Like everyone else we are struggling for funding and this moron wants to squander money replacing helmets. What can we do?

Answer: I’m staying out of this one. By the way, did you hear what’s going on in FDNY?

Posted in Burning Question, Humor, Occupational Safety & Health, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , ,

Pennsylvania DOL Issues Warning to Volunteer FD On Junior Members

The investigation into a live fire training accident in Pennsylvania last month continues with the state Department of Labor and Industry sending a warning letter to the Jackson Township Fire Department.

A 16 year old junior firefighter was seriously injured in the accident which reportedly occurred when someone used 2 ½ gallons of gasoline to ignite a training fire. The youth was hospitalized for 6 days and sustained first, second and third degree burns.

The incident raises a number of legal issues with both civil and criminal implications, including: violation of occupational safety and health laws, violation of child labor laws, negligence, and reckless endangerment.

Here is a link to a news video about the case that I was unable to embed.

While the use of gasoline for a live fire training activity is incredibly stupid, the case should serve as a warning to any fire department with junior members – even if you do not anticipate such stupidity happening in your department.

There is a very real need to think through the roles that junior members can safely and legally perform. If you have not realized it yet, child labor laws do indeed apply to junior members and these laws (both Federal and state) prohibit exposing youths to dangerous conditions. Every state is different so it is important to know what your law provides. Some states have detailed regulations on junior firefighters and others do not.

Here is a link to a the Pennsylvania regulations and here is a link to a pretty good guide for compliance.

Posted in Junior firefighters, Occupational Safety & Health, Training, Volunteers

Tagged , , ,

Detroit Firefighters Sue over Recent Cuts

DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Posted in Civil Suit, Labor Law, Occupational Safety & Health, Staffing

Tagged , , , ,

Baltimore County Settles Major ADA Case for Over $500k

Baltimore County has reached a settlement with the US Department of Justice and the EEOC over allegations that the county’s police and fire departments unlawfully discriminated against employees and candidates on the basis of disabilities.

The case arose out of a number of allegations and lawsuits dating back years that challenge the county’s approach toward compliance with the American’s With Disabilities’ Act. In 2006 the county required certain employees to undergo medical examinations and answer disability related questions about their medical history that were not job-related or consistent with business necessity. The DOJ alleges that the medical examinations and questions were “overbroad and wholly unrelated to the medical conditions for which the County was purportedly evaluating the employees’ fitness for duty.”

The complaint also alleges that the personnel officer for the Baltimore County Police Department, Robert H. Wickless, tried to raise concerns about the county’s ADA related practices, but was retaliated against in violation of the ADA.

The county is also accused of denying employment to two otherwise qualified EMT applicants for because they have insulin dependent diabetes (Type I Diabetes). This took place in 2010.

Initially, the EEOC sought a voluntary resolution of the case, but was unable to reach a settlement with the county. That prompted the EEOC to turn the case over to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The county steadfast denied any wrongdoing, but apparently reached a settlement with the DOJ prior to the suit actually being filed on Tuesday. The settlement, filed at the same time as the complaint, requires the county to pay roughly $500,000 to 10 named plaintiffs, one of whom will also be hired as a probationary firefighter in December. The county also agreed to address the concerns that gave rise to the complaints, and submit reports to the DOJ at 6 month intervals on its compliance efforts.

Here is a copy of the complaint. US V Baltimore County COMPLAINT

Here is a copy of the consent decree. US V Baltimore County CONSENT DECREE

Note that the last 2 pages of the consent decree lists the specific awards made to the 10 injured parties.

 

Posted in ADA, Civil Suit, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health

Tagged , , , , ,

Oneida Firefighters File Staffing Grievance

Firefighters in Oneida, New York are grieving a decision to reduce minimum shift staffing from five to four.

The Oneida Professional Firefighters Association, IAFF Local No. 2692 filed the grievance after Mayor  Don Hudson issued a directive to reduce the staffing on July 26, 2012. The Union also filed an improper practice (unfair labor practice) complaint with the state Public Employment Relations Board.

Mayor Hudson, who is also the city’s former fire chief, ordered the change after the department used up  $80,000 of the $85,000 budgeted for over time. In a letter to current fire chief George Myers, the Mayor stated “it appears some think the only solution to the problem is to continue to throw money at the problem”.

Firefighters union president  Reay Walker said the reduction will “severely jeopardize the safety of the public and the safety of firefighters” and claims that the mayor’s math is off. He pointed out that overtime costs are attributable to firefighter injuries and a vacancy. The vacancy saves money in the salary account that could be used to offset the shortage in the overtime account. He also claims the city receives compensation from workers compensation when a member is off injured that should also offset what appears to be an overtime deficit.

More on the story.

Posted in Labor Law, Occupational Safety & Health, Staffing

Tagged , ,

New Haven Firefighter Claims Light Duty Discrimination

The New Haven Fire Department is facing another discrimination charge, this time from a firefighter who claims he was “mercilessly” discriminated against while in training because he was asked to paint fire hydrants, mop floors and wash windows.

Aaron Brantley filed the complaint with the Connecticut State Commission on Human Rights alleging race discrimination. He claims he suffered a shoulder injury, and was asked to do these outrageous tasks while on light duty in May of 2011.

The complaint names the City of New Haven, New Haven Fire Department, Assistant Fire Chief Patrick Egan and Capt. Mark Marcarelli who heads the training division and alleges that Brantley was transferred to different firehouses, ordered to paint 25 to 30 fire hydrants, mop floors, and even instructed to wash windows at the fire training school while it was raining.

Brantley claims he was on light duty at the time, with doctor’s orders restricting him from any repetitive motion with his right arm and lifting more than 21 pounds of weight. Brantley’s attorney, Patricia Cofrancesco, said that the department’s action amounted to “hazing” and went “beyond the pale” of reasonable light-duty work, all because Brantley is Black.

Fire department officials have countered that the tasks assigned to Brantley were all reasonable light duty assignments. Capt.  Marcarelli denied ordering Brantley to wash the training academy’s windows in the rain, referring to the allegation as “false” and “ridiculous”.

Chief Egan was quoted as saying “For $50 an hour, I don’t think it is a whole lot to ask someone to do … The fact is, when people are at work, they’re going to work.”

More on the story.

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Discrimination, Municipal Liability, Occupational Safety & Health, Workers Compensation

Tagged , , ,