Sugarloaf Report Clears Ambulance and Medics
The State of Maine’s division of Emergency Medical Services has completed its investigation into the death of a skier on January 12, 2012, and cleared the ambulance service and paramedics involved of any wrongdoing.
This is the second investigation to similarly clear personnel of any wrongdoing. The Carabassett Valley Police Department issued its report in March, 2012 finding no criminal wrongdoing.
The bizarre story began when David Morse struck a tree while skiing with his family at the Sugarloaf Ski Area, suffering serious chest trauma. He was promptly treated by the ski patrol who got him down the hill to the first aid room in 12 minutes. Due to a blizzard, a helicopter evacuation was not possible, and a Northstar ambulance was called to transport him to the closest hospital in Farmington, roughly 50 miles away.
During the course of treating and packaging Morse, he coded. Morse’s widow, Dana, a nurse, assisted with some of his treatment and rode in the front seat of the ambulance. However, as the journey began she asked repeatedly to ride in the back, and claimed that the driver finally stopped the vehicle so she could move. She said that when she exited the front passenger’s seat, the vehicle sped off without her.
Dana claimed she had to flag down a car, went back to the ski resort to get her car, and then went to Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington. Once at the hospital, Dana discovered that the ambulance had not brought David in. A nurse at the hospital contacted the paramedics and learned that because they concluded that David had died en route, the ambulance had taken the body back to the ski area.
The state’s investigation disclosed that the driver of the ambulance was not a paramedic, but rather a member of the ski patrol. The report found no protocol violations in the care rendered to David, or in the decisions made by the ambulance crew.
According to the Kennebec Journal, Jay Bradshaw, director of Maine’s division of Emergency Medical Services, told reporters that Morse’s death was an unavoidable tragedy under the circumstances, and that personnel did all they could to save his life.
Bradshaw said that it was impossible for investigators to know for certain what was said between Dana and the ski patroller driving the ambulance that led to her being dropped off. The police department’s investigation concluded that Dana asked to be let out of the vehicle.
Bradshaw was quoted as saying “It’s awful that this happened, but there is nothing that speaks to that in Maine EMS protocols.”
Here is a link to the prior blog about Maine’s EMS protocols that allow CPR to be stopped after 20 minutes.
Here is the news article on the story.
Here is a copy of the state report. It does an excellent job of reciting the facts of this truly challenging, tragic case. 120404022456_NorthStar Investigation Report (Public)
It seems that the state EMS agency wanted to let everyone connected with Northstar off the hook, and their way of doing so was to say that “It’s awful that this happened, but there is nothing that speaks to that in Maine EMS protocols.”
Common sense would tell us that (1) you don’t dump the patient’s wife by the side of the road and speed away; (2) no list of “protocols” is going to be able to cite every stupid or abusive thing that someone might take it into his head to do. Where is there any concern for what happened to Dana Morse?
And what is her reaction to this report?
Licia
I understand your emotions but I am not sure I follow your reasoning. Either the EMS personnel followed their protocols, or they violated their protocols.
Are you suggesting that paramedics should be cited by the state for something beyond what is in the protocols? Keep in mind, this is a state investigation. Things that are beyond the protocols can and should be addressed by the employer of the parties involved, but the state has jurisdictional limitations in what it can cite people for.
Also – the report states that the medics were involved in treating David Morse in the back of the ambulance, and the ambulance was being driven by a ski patroller. The ski patroller is not licensed by the state, nor subject to the state’s protocols. The police investigation concluded that the ambulance stopped to let Dana out because she asked to be let out. The state report was a bit more vague.
But let’s lay the cards on the table: if the driver of the ambulance stopped the ambulance intending to deceive Dana into getting out so she would be left by the roadside – then that decision was wrong, and indefensible. PERIOD. I don’t know anyone anywhere who would disagree with that. A person who would do that deserves to be disciplined – and likely terminated whether a medic or ski patroller. It is a cold, heartless action.
The question is – is that what happened? That may be what Dana believes happened, it may be what her recollection is. However, it is not what either of the two investigations into the incident have concluded.
Curt, first of all, most of us have never even seen this list of “protocols.” My position is that leaving Dana Morse at the side of the road is indefensible by any common sense standard. I cannot judge the medical treatment given to David, but I would take Ms. Morse’s allegations seriously since she is an experienced nurse. Jay Bradshaw’s report does not directly address those allegations.
If the list of “protocols” is such that stupid and inhumane actions can be performed without violating anything on the list, so much the worse for the list. Either the list is inadequate, or appropriate emergency treatment has to be evaluated by something more than a list of “protocols.” Like how about we use some intelligence and compassion?
Must there be a specific item on the list that says: “Do not dump the patient’s wife by the side of the road” in order to make that wrong? How many other horrible actions are not on the list just because no list can mention everything?
I am appalled by the suggestion that the ambulance company is not responsible for the actions of the person they allowed to drive their vehicle. When one gets in an ambulance, doesn’t one assume that the company is responsible for the driver?
And the excuse given, that the driver thought Ms. Morse wanted to be with her children, is absurd. Her children were not at the side of the road. Obviously she wanted to be with her dying husband: she had been saying so all along. What does it take to get some common sense used?
Licia
Arguing that the outrageousness of the act warrants severe punishment doesn’t help us get any closer to understanding if the act occurred the way that Dana alleged. That remains the question.
If the driver left Dana by the side of the road intentionally and purposefully to be mean, spiteful, or to trick her – then he should be dealt with appropriately by those who have to ability to punish him.
However, if Dana said “Let me out of this ambulance”… then why would you want to punish the driver? Strip everything else away – if she asked to get out of the ambulance – how can you suggest the driver be punished at all (let alone by the state that has no jurisdiction over him)?
If the driver did in fact act improperly, the state next would have assessed whether the medics were aware of what he had done – and if they were aware – did they have any culpability for that decision. If they had, the medics could have been punished. That did not happen – which leads me to conclude the evidence showed either that (a) Dana asked to get out or (b) the medics were not aware of what transpired.
Also – I think you may be confused about the role of the state EMS division in monitoring EMS personnel. The state can discipline licensed EMS personnel – such as by revoking their license, suspending their license, or mandating additional training. They cannot fine EMS personnel, sentence them to prison, etc…. nor can they do anything what so ever to non-licensed EMS personnel such as ski patrollers.
You seem like an intelligent, thoughful person. In other blogs on this subject we have discussed a different aspect of this case – one that I would suggest may have played a role here (and even if it did not play a role here – could play a role in other cases). It has to do with how EMS personnel are trained to interact with family members when the decision is made to stop resuscitation efforts.
Up to this point in time, our training programs have not properly prepared us for dealing with the family – in large measure because we could not make that decision to stop resuscitation until recently. In Maine, prior to December 1, 2011 medics could not make the decision to stop resuscitation efforts. As a former ski patroller myself, there is nothing in a ski patrollers training to help him deal with that awful situation either.
Can you imagine having to tell a young wife that her husband has expired and that resuscitation efforts will now be stopped? Or tell a young parent that their child has died, and we are “giving up” trying to resuscitate? Its not like an emergency room where the family is waiting outside the ER in a waiting room – they are there watching everything that is happening.
In 39 years in this business I have never had to do that. I have told family members that their loved one had passed away – but only when that person had injuries or obvious conditions (rigor mortis, lividity) that were incompatable with life. That is a very hard thing to do, but we are prepared to do that.
Telling a family member that we are going to stop resuscitation efforts is another level of hard… another dimension that is exponentially harder IMHO. It is something that doctors learn how to do – but not many medics are prepared for. There are currently no training programs that I am aware of that address this, although many agencies are now scrambling to address the need.
My sense is that this gap in training may have played a role here. I can’t say that for certain – but it is a concern I have – that we are placing young men and women paramedics in a position in the field – and they are not properly prepared to deal with the emotional side of making “the call”.
Again – if (and it is a big “if”) that were the problem here – if a lack of system-wide training – was a contributing factor here – then what good will it do to punish these individuals. They would be scape-goats for a flawed system.
My last point – and please do not take this personally – I am merely cursing at the universe – why do people feel the need to find a villian behind every tragedy? Some tragedies do not have a villian. They are just tragedies.
I see it in my law practice… I have seen it innumerable times as a firefighter – when someone dies people are looking to put someone’s head on a stake. They want someone to blame and will villianize those involved. Perhaps it is a function of human nature and how we are hardwired through our DNA.
My concern here is that firefighters and paramedics are not like librarians, accountants, or writers… we deal with death and destruction every day – and because of that association can become the targets of those who are on a mission to villianize… or perhaps “find a villian” is a better way to characterize it … as they try to cope with a tragedy.
“Most of us have never even seen this list of “protocols.”
Licia,
Took me 5 seconds to find the Maine EMS protocols online. If you are really interested in the guidelines they followed, you can find them here:
http://www.maine.gov/dps/ems/documents/2011MaineEMSProtocols.pdf
Curt, you begin, “Arguing that the outrageousness of the act warrants severe punishment doesn’t help …” (which I didn’t argue), and then you go on on the subject of punishment–a topic I didn’t even mention. I didn’t say anyone should go to jail or even that anyone should be fired–though it may be someone should be fired, but that wasn’t my focus.
My concern is that this visitor from Canada, Dana Morse, has been totally dismissed as if her complaints were without substance, when it has seemed to me that she is an intelligent, responsible, and experienced person who deserved better. To say that protocols were followed is not to address her specific criticisms of the medical treatment, which are just not addressed in this report.
Dana Morse didn’t strike me as a flake or an hysteric. I don’t know where she is now, or why her voice is no longer being heard, unless she is just overwhelmed with despair. (Does anyone here know how to contact her?)
And Curt, I am not a person who needs a “villain” whenever a tragedy occurs. That’s patronizing and not justified by anything I wrote, that I can see.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people hereabouts who think Franklin Memorial Hospital is God and can do no wrong, and if anyone says they did something wrong there must be something wrong with that person. I got interested in your blog because you didn’t seem to be of that mindset. I don’t claim to understand the psychology of the mindset, but it is being reinforced by this report. The report seems to have overawed you and changed your attitude, but I don’t know why.
Curt, you also give a lot of space to the subject of the difficulty for EMTs of telling a family member the patient has died. That is completely irrelevant to this story, as Dana had already been left by the side of the road when David died. (Or is it your theory that he had already died and that’s why she was dumped? That hadn’t even occurred to me, though I suppose it is possible.) I do think that the excuse given for leaving her there would be believed only by someone determined to whitewash NorthStar.
At the very least she deserves a profound apology, which she has not been given.
John, thank you for the URL. My operating system is too old to handle pdf files, but my husband can retrieve it for me, and I’ll look at it when he does.
Licia
I am enjoying our discussion and I hope you do not take offense to the points we disagree over. I enjoy the back and forth but sometimes people get offended by that and I do not want that to be the case with us.
Having said that – it does not sound like you are willing to entertain the possibility that the incident occurred any way other than as Dana alleged, that Dana was “dumped” and that the investigations were thinly veiled “whitewashes”.
Dana’s complaints were not “dismissed as if without subtsance” simply because the investigations did not come out the way you believe they should. There was a police investigation, a state EMS investigation, and there no doubt will be an internal investigation by the ambulance company (let me guess – if it does not come out the way you believe it should it too will be a whitewash).
The heart of my point is that with proper training the EMS crew and driver might have been better able to interact with Dana as the decision to stop resuscitaton efforts was made. The medics had to realize they would not be doing CPR all the way to Farmington in a blizzard… The decision to stop resuscitation had to have been on their minds as they departed on the journey. The fact that Dana was a trained medical provider only made the situation more challenging.
If the EMS personnel had better training on what to do with a distraught family member (particularly one with medical training) then perhaps Dana would not have asked to get out of the ambulance… perhaps the driver might have been able to convince her to stay in the ambulance until they got to a better location – perhaps they would have been able to address some of the emotional aspects of what was unfolding better than they did.
Dana does not have to be a “flake or hysteric” – to be wrong in her perceptions and recollection of what occurred. No one in that situation can be expected to be in a good frame of mind. Again – we are not well trained in how to deal with people in that emotional state (going back to my point about training) and in a case like this better skills in dealing with the family members may have been the ONLY thing responders could have done to change an inevitable and tragic outcome.
The men and women involved in that incident (who I do not know) got up that morning intent on helping people. That was their focus that day, and probably every day. They were not on a mission to hurt people, to ruin peoples lives, or leave people by the side of the road in a blizzard. People make mistakes and should be held accountable for their mistakes. Some develop bad attitudes and should be held accountable for that.
If the facts support Dana’s version of the events – then those involved should be disciplined. PERIOD. But if not (and 2 investigations have concluded they did not) then they have been put through an emotional wringer and falsely accused.
Lastly – in my home state of RI, we cannot stop resuscitation efforts. We would have had to have kept working on David til we got to Franklin Memorial. Prior to this story breaking, I was not aware that medics ANYWHERE could make the decision to stop resuscitation without medical control (physician directed). When I first blogged about this story – I thought the real story was why did these medics stop CPR. In my mind there were dead wrong for stopping… and it turns out I was wrong. The Maine protocols allow them to stop and there is science behind the rule.
If I was Dana on January 12, 2012 and one of my loved ones was dying like David was, I would have been hysterical and I would have been insisting that all possible efforts be continued all the way to the hospital. I would not have known about the 20 minute rule, nor the science behind the 20 minute rule and that the medics were right to have stopped resuscitation efforts when they did. I am not sure I would have been in a good frame of mind to have that rule explained to me.
I may well have gotten in a physical confrontation with those same medics over their decision to stop resuscitation efforts – and I would have been wrong. I may have said “Fine, you want to stop CPR, then I will continue” – and I would have been wrong. Or perhaps I would have said “Let me out of this ambulance”.
Curt, I appreciate the discussion, but I don’t appreciate having attitudes attributed to me that I don’t hold; you also do have a way of changing the subject.
I have read the Maine EMS report, and it simply does not deal with Dana Morse’s criticisms. If it had dealt with them, I would then have to evaluate whether it had done so well, and I hope my mind would not be closed; but as yet we have not seen that.
Here’s the sort of thing we should have seen in this report:
1. COMPLAINT: Dana Morse says that the EMTs did W when they should have done X [of course this should use direct quotation when possible].
REPLY: We disagree with Dana Morse because
(a) the EMTs did not in fact do W
OR
(b) the EMTs did in fact do X
OR
(c) it’s true that the EMTs did W and not X, but there was a good reason [state the reason in terms of what was going on, perhaps citing ONE or TWO relevant items from the list of Protocols, but NOT the whole 144-page list of Protocols].
2. COMPLAINT: Dana Morse says that the EMTs did Y when they should have done Z.
REPLY: We disagree with Dana Morse because: [etc., as above, and again if Protocols are to be cited in support of Bradshaw’s view it should be only ONE or TWO items].
There is nothing of this kind in the report. Instead we are repeatedly told that the EMTs followed the Protocols, but when we look for the Protocols (I got my husband to look them up after John helpfully provided a URL) we find that the document is 144 pages long and covers a huge number of things not relevant to this case. Obviously the general public is not going to read this 144-page document (even I am not going to read it). Jay Bradshaw surely knows this, and is apparently counting on readers’ being so awed by his letterhead that they just take his word for it that NorthStar was blameless and Dana Morse was wrong. This is one reader who is unimpressed.
Then you go on and make insinuations about Dana Morse, suggesting that she was difficult to interact with, that she was “distraught,” not in a “good frame of mind,” and “in that emotional state” that “we are not well trained in how to deal with.”
We do not have a shred of evidence that Dana Morse was any more difficult to interact with than anyone else in this scenario, though devotees of NorthStar/FMH in other forums haven’t hesitated to make similar aspersions on her. We have no proof that anything was wrong with her memory, perceptions, or ability to communicate. It is of course possible that there was some error in her memory, perceptions, or communications: I am not about to make a God of her any more than I condone others making a God of FMH. But if someone wants to prove her wrong they will need to do more than wave a 144-page list of protocols or say that after all she must have been emotionally upset. THEY WILL NEED TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH HER SPECIFIC CRITICISMS.
Licia
I understand that you think I am changing the subject. Unfortunately – what appears to you as me changing the subject – is me explaining some issues in this case that you do not seem willing to consider – and my sense is that it is probably because you have already made up your mind about the fact that the EMS personnel were wrong… that they were the villains.
Now – rather than have you accuse me a third time of misstating you or attributing to you attitudes you do not hold (which you have already accused me of twice by the way) let me give you some of your own quotes that are the basis for my statement that you have already made up your mind:
It seems that the state EMS agency wanted to let everyone connected with Northstar off the hook
Common sense would tell us that (1) you don’t dump the patient’s wife by the side of the road and speed away
My position is that leaving Dana Morse at the side of the road is indefensible by any common sense standard
I cannot judge the medical treatment given to David, but I would take Ms. Morse’s allegations seriously since she is an experienced nurse
I am appalled by the suggestion that the ambulance company is not responsible for the actions of the person they allowed to drive their vehicle
the excuse given, that the driver thought Ms. Morse wanted to be with her children, is absurd
My concern is that this visitor from Canada, Dana Morse, has been totally dismissed as if her complaints were without substance
Dana Morse didn’t strike me as a flake or an hysteric
I am more than happy to debate the vitally important issues associated with this case, but there is little point in doing so if at the end of the day you have made up your mind about what occurred and are not willing to consider that other factors may be relevant. We can simply agree to disagree.
Your latest post complains about the way the report was written, and assumes it was prepared in response to a complaint submitted by Dana Morse that makes specific allegations of misconduct. That raises a great question. Did Dana Morse file a complaint with the state of Maine EMS Division? If she did, then you have a great point because as you point out – the report does not consider any specific accusations of wrong doing. I recall reading something in the news that she did not file a formal complaint – but I do not know for sure. The report itself does not state she filed a complaint and the media coverage said that the state agreed to look into the matter given the media attention the case had provoked.
You also seem to assume that because Dana was a nurse in Nova Scotia that she knew what the EMS protocols are in Maine. That is an understandable assumption. As I tried to point out in my last post – as an EMT in Rhode Island, I did not know what the Maine protocols were prior to this incident. I am not trying to raise irrelevant issues here – but IMHO – the Maine protocols are a vital issue in understanding what happened. Maine is ahead of the rest of the country on this issue.
In my home state, EMS personnel cannot stop CPR in the field. We must bring the patient to an emergency room. If that incident occurred in RI (and perhaps Nova Scotia) the EMS personnel would likely be severely disciplined and probably would lose their licenses for not treating David all the way the Franklin Memorial. Maine’s protocols are different and allow the medics to stop CPR. I cited the specific protocols in question in an earlier blog so you don’t have to read through 144 pages of information to find it.
If I was Dana’s shoes that day (not knowing the Maine protocols), I would have had some major issues with how the medics handled the case. I would have been very upset. After reading the protocols and understanding the science I now have a better understanding about why they did what they did.
The only question in my mind is why was she left standing by the side of the road. Two investigations failed to find fault with what happened. You believe the investigations were whitewashes. I lean toward a possible training issue that goes way beyond this one case in Carabassett Valley, Maine.
Lastly – you mentioned on two occasions that you thought my attitude had “changed” – and even suggested I was “overawed” by Jay Bradshaw’s report [speaking of speculating… attributing attitude… insinuating]. At the risk of going off into another irrelevant discussion – what happened was that I discovered that the Maine EMS protocols authorized/required medics to stop resuscitation efforts after 20 minutes. To me that was the game changer. In my mind the issue was no longer whether the medics were justified in stopping their efforts – it became a concern about how do you deal with the family… who (without speculating about Dana in particular but family members in general) can be expected to be emotionally distraught. I won’t repeat myself – but I really think that issue played a huge role in this case (yes I am speculating…).
Curt explained it, but it seems like you still don’t get it. Or want to. The Maine EMS report reviewed the actions of the Maine EMS providers. The ski patroller behind the wheel is not a Maine EMS provider.
It may be an unknown issue to you as a civilian, but EMS personnel actively engaged in a resuscitation attempt are not focused much on what’s going on in the front of the vehicle. I doubt they even noticed the truck stopped to let Dana Morse out, and if they did probably assumed the vehicle had come to a stop sign or other traffic control device. The patient compartment in their vehicle may not even have access to the front of the truck at all. In some cases it truly is a windowless box.
I have a feeling further discussion with you is pointless, but I wanted to offer one final attempt to explain EMS operations to someone who clearly has no understanding of them (but chooses to make judgements about same anyway).
Curt asks, “Did Dana Morse file a complaint with the state of Maine EMS Division?” I don’t know whom she filed it with, but Maine EMS must have had a complaint of hers on hand, since the report ends (next to last sentence), “The Committee…recommended that the complaint be dismissed.”
The question of when resuscitation efforts should be ended is one I didn’t raise (and I don’t know whether Dana Morse raised it in her complaint), but it obviously is one that Curt very much wants to talk about. That’s his privilege on his own blog, but it’s not relevant to my comments.
Where I differ with BH is that I think an ambulance company should be responsible for the behavior of any person that they allow to drive their ambulance. I think that is what the public naturally expects and has a right to expect. It’s not a question of whether the people in back can see what goes on in the front–the responsibility should begin when they let someone take the wheel. I don’t know why they didn’t have one of their own crew available to drive: maybe there was a good reason, but they should still accept responsibility. Everybody else is held responsible when someone they delegate a task to does something stupid or hurtful; the ambulance company should not be an exception.
As for leaving Ms. Morse by the roadside, Curt says that “two investigations” have “failed to find fault with what happened.” I have seen only one report that addresses this issue at all, and it addresses it very inadequately, citing an improbable misunderstanding that the driver came up with. I would put more weight on Dana Morse’s testimony given immediately after the incident than on the interpretation that the driver came up with nearly 3 months later, partly because what the driver “remembers” her saying is so unlikely for her to have said, and his action is so unlikely to have been anything she asked for.
I have presented my concerns here rationally, and I have repeatedly gotten personal insults, misrepresentations, and changes of subject in response. If there are fair-minded people reading this blog, I think I have made my case to them; if not there is no point in my continuing, so this will be my last entry. Dana Morse’s specific complaints remain unaddressed by FMH or Maine EMS.
If an ambulance company should be responsible for whoever operates their vehicles, how does that translate if the ambulance were to become involved in a motor vehicle accident?
Would it be the ambulance company because they have their name advertised on the side?
Or would it be the person who is in “care, custody and control” of the vehicle?
Would this be any different if it were your personal vehicle and you let your neighbor borrow it? If they got into an accident, would you be at fault simply because it is your name on the title and registration of the vehicle?
Is the medic crew in the back responsible for the actions of the person driving, *especially* if both are involved with something as strenuous as a resuscitation attempt?
I can say from experience that working a “code” in the back of a moving ambulance, I have little to no situational awareness as to what is happening outside of trying to save my patient’s life.
Licia
I am very sorry that you feel personally insulted. That was not my goal or desire and I very much value the opportunity to debate these issues. However, perhaps it is better that we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Anyone who reads this thread can draw their own conclusions about who made a rational argument, who made unfounded assumptions, who misrepresented facts/details, and who was overly focused on irrelevant details.
Tempted as I am to respond to the latest barrage – it would just be rehashing what we have already covered, and would not be helpful.
BH and Lance
I just landed in Gainesville, Florida for a class and a good analogy to the ski patrol driver hit me: If both the pilot and co-pilot on a commercial flight were incapacitated and they asked a passenger to land the plane – can the FAA cite the guy for violating some FAA regulation? Come on, it’s an emergency and he’s not a pilot.
Yes, of course the airline is going to be liable for any damages or injuries that occur – maybe they might even be sanctioned by the FAA for allowing that situation to occur if it were within their control to have prevented it – but come on.
In the Sugarloaf case, the patient is dying – what are you supposed to do – stop CPR to check the guy’s drivers license? Maybe then give him a road test to see if he can safely drive? Maybe give him a psych test to see if he has a personality disorder that might make him do something bizzare? Or a hearing test?
Anyway – I was thinking about that as I got off the plane… damn its hot down here!!!
I have read along through this great back and forth, and have read through the related reports and the EMS protocols. I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Kuenning is more interested in the appearance of debate and discussion, without its actual substance.
Ms. Kuenning, I find that you are so very disbelieving of anything other than that Dana Morse was the single victim in the story. The medics, the ski patrol, the hospital, the ambulance service… your posts seem to indicate that you believe they were all involved in some conspiracy or cover up.
When you have 2 separate investigations and multiple rational, intelligent people telling you the opposite of what you believe… you might just consider that you aren’t correct. Wishing that those diabolic emergency workers conspired to kill Mr. Morse and “dump” Ms. Morse on the side of the road does not make it true.
In all honesty, what seems more likely? I more likely suspect that Ms. Morse was a distraught wife who, combined with her own medical experience and a possible superiority complex to those treating her husband, attempted to subvert care for her husband in the way she saw fit — and then wanted to go for the throat of anyone who wanted to disagree with her. I have nothing of evidence to support this, but it seems as likely a scenario as the one you are suggesting, and without half as much vehemence as you show.
Please step back and consider that you have become too entrenched in your own opinion to see reason. If your biggest complaint is that Ms. Morse willingly left the vehicle and then did not re-board the vehicle, then perhaps she should just not have left the vehicle. Otherwise, I’m not sure why she should have been brought along in the first place.
Entirely adequate analogy, Curt.
Which will be entirely lost on Ms. Kuenning. She’s made up her mind, and that’s the end of that.
Curt,
I disagree with your analogy to the airplane. I quote from the report:
“it is not unusual for EMS providers to be in the rear providing patient care while non‐EMS personnel drive the ambulance. NorthStar provides annual training for Ski Patrol to familiarize them with the vehicle prior to the ski season.”
I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that NorthStar should be responsible for the actions of the driver. They accepted that liability when they responded to their personnel shortage by providing training to ski patrol personnel and allowed them to drive. My FD stopped driving private ambulances for several reasons, but this was one of them. I look forward to your legal opinion on this.
John
Point taken. I did not see that in the report about the familiarization training.
Obviously Northstar is still responsible for whomever drives the ambulance liability wise (just as an airline would be). The owner of a vehicle cannot escape liability for that. My point was more directed toward the jurisdiction of the state licensing authority (or the FAA) to cite the driver/pilot.
Also familiarization training and driver training/approval is something else again.
As for your fire department not driving private ambulances, I suppose that works right up to the point that something happens and the fingers start being pointed. I can’t help but think of Alameda – and the FD decided they would no longer do water rescues due to budget constraints. That worked right up til someone died – and then instantly public opinion turned against the FD.
Curt,
Thanks. One of the other reasons we don’t drive anymore is my FD went ALS, so our medics provide patient care and have the ambulance EMT drive(the private co. mans with 1 Medic/1 basic EMT). No sense having an EMT in the back and a paramedic driving on a call serious enough to require the extra help in the back.
Gotchya… sound reasoning there.