Connecticut Man Sues Over Transport to Hospital
A Connecticut man has filed a lawsuit over being forced against his will to be transported to a hospital to be evaluated for a possible heart attack.
Arthur Schofield, 53, contends that he was forcibly removed from his home in South Windsor by police and EMS personnel because they believed he was having a heart attack. The incident began on December 23, 2010, when Schofield went to his doctor’s office in Manchester complaining of “an ache he was feeling in his lung”.
Concerned about a possible heart attack the doctor called an ambulance, but Schofield declined treatment and left the office upset that an ambulance had been called. The ambulance crew notified the Manchester Police Department and an officer responded. Because Schofield has left the scene to go home, the officer requested South Windsor Police to meet the subject at his house. Both police departments and the ambulance from the Manchester Fire Department responded.
Once at Schofield’s house, the situation deteriorated. Schofield had been drinking and police officers forcibly restrained him. He was then transported to Manchester Memorial Hospital where he was evaluated against his will in the ER. He was discharged once it was confirmed he was not having a heart attack. A blood test put his blood alcohol level at .01. To add insult to injury, he later received a $3,100 bill from the hospital and a $590 bill for the ambulance transport.
The suit was filed March 14, 2012 in Superior Court in Hartford. The suit names a long list of defendants (34 in all), including the Manchester Police Department, South Windsor Police Department, Manchester Fire Department, Manchester Memorial Hospital and Ambulance Service of Manchester, Manchester Fire Chief Robert Bycholski, the individual police officers, the ER doctor, and several of the ER technicians.
Schofield’s suit alleges a number of Constitutional violations under 42 USC 1983 (4th Amendment, 14th Amendment due process, equal protection, right to privacy), state due process violations, assault, battery, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and kidnapping. Besides seeking damages from the various organizations, Schofield is suing each of the named individuals personally.
Here is a copy of the complaint. Claim 2012-16 Schoefield
When I read through it I was a bit taken aback by the way it was drafted, including a “Case Snapshot” section, and how casual/imprecise some of the language was. For example, at one point the complaint states “The Plaintiff was alright with the doctor’s suggestion”… that is not how attorneys normally phrase allegations in their legal pleadings… at least not here in the Northeast. Yet it was clearly drafted by an attorney – I cannot imagine any possible count was omitted.
Upon reaching the last page on the complaint, the reason for my concern was evident: the complaint was drafted by a California attorney… which leads to another question. Why is a California attorney filing suit for a Connecticut plaintiff in Connecticut? Who exactly is going to appear in court for all those pesky motions…
Be that as it may, I would expect the response from the defense to be strong and direct, seeking to promptly remove the case to Federal court in an effort to quickly resolve those Federal Constitutional questions. It is part of the trench warfare that has become quite common in litigation these days. Federal courts stick to a much tighter schedule and are considerably less tolerant of poorly prepared cases than state court. It will no doubt increase the costs of the suit to both sides – which will probably impact the Plaintiff a lot more than the defendants… Remember… trench warfare.
One final point – in addition to seeking monetary damages, the complaint seeks a court order requiring that all police officers in Manchester and South Windsor receive mandatory annual training on when they can lawfully take someone into custody to be examined by a doctor.
As a practicing paramedic, how would one avoid a lawsuit such as this? If they were to let him refuse and the PT suffered a heart attack, they may be liable for allowing that. Now they face a kidnapping lawsuit! What is one to do??
The issue of ones mental competency is often blurred especially when alcohol is involved.
Kevin
I wish I could ease your fears with a simple solution – but the thing is – there is no simple or absolute way to avoid these kinds of lawsuits. You can’t say “always transport no matter what the patient says” nor “always do what the patient says”. Each case is different and depends on the specific facts.
We have to be good at identifying factors that are important. Alcohol is one factor but it is just a factor. One beer is probably not enough to cause a loss of mental capacity. We also have to be good at documenting the factors that are relevant.
My focus when assessing a patient’s mental capacity: Is the patient capable of understanding the risks of declining aid, and the benefits of receiving aid? If not they lack capacity.
Here is my quote – taken from Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services: ” Where state or regional authorities have established a standard for competency, responders should use that definition for their evaluation. In the absence of such a standard, many authorities recommend that to consent the patient must be alert and oriented to person, place, and time, not intoxicated or subject to mind-altering medication, not subject to some mental disease or defect, and capable of understanding the consequences (risks and benefits) of his decision- making.”
We also have to be good at documenting the factors that we base our decisions on – regardless of whether that decision is to allow the patient to decline, or forcibly take him. The fact the patient can rationalize why he does not want care, and can explain the consequences of declining aid to us are certainly relevant factors.
I included the complaint in the post because I think looking at the allegations will help medics and firefighters understand what factors will be relevant – and will stand out – in a lawsuit. Take the time to read it.
Curt, did you take time to look up the “California attorney” you mentioned in the article?
In case you’re curious, this legal diva can be reached at (where else?) http://www.thelegaldiva.com . Why the flashy name? Well, when you’re “a radio show host and producer” who is a “former LAPD cop”, you need a name that stands out.
While one may find her website to be a bit over-the-top, she has no record of disciplinary action on the CalBar website, and she has passed the Connecticut Bar.
Returning the story, I have seen paramedics heavily influence patients to refuse, and I have seen those same paramedics find themselves in quite a bit of trouble when that “drunk” patient turns out to be a “subdural head bleed” patient. On the other hand, I have seen some paramedics who are so motivated to do their job, that they practically kidnap patients. I’m honestly surprised this kind of story doesn’t come up more often.
I’ve always told people they’re more likely to go to court over a patient refusal than a patient who was transported, and I try to make sure to re-read, re-re-read, and re-re-re-read any patient refusal report. While I don’t know all the facts in this case, in situations where I felt the patient did need to go and the patient was refusing, I’ve felt comfortable properly documenting the patient’s refusal, and ensuring I got the proper signatures.
And to answer Kevin’s question: make the junior guy write the report. When the lawsuit comes, just tell them you were driving.
Ferg
Thanks for the info and the perspective… especially on making the junior guy do the report… What is it that Bruno says… “Seniority, the longer you’ve been here the more you’ll appreciate it”.
Legal Diva? I hope she has alot of frequent flyer miles, or perhaps her own private jet. I can envision a litigation strategy that could grind up alot of her time on this case (which is why some attorneys would exercise a bit more discretion in choosing who to sue… suing 34 defendants can be overkill). Depositions, motions and of course the possible removal to Federal court is going to grind her – particularly if she has it on a contingency. The costs alone of deposing all those defendants will be enormous.
I guess this is the counter point to the attitude of “better to treat than release” attitude that is prevalent. As with everything else, “no means no” unless you can document otherwise.
Time to remove this case to federal court. I’m sure a federal judge would have a few comments for the plaintiff and counsel.
I remember this case was a huge topic of discussion when it first came to light. The claim of kidnapping on this one will be interesting to see, since we had an MD and PD involved, two professions who have different rules than EMS.
In my short experience as the Risk Manager and CQI Officer for my Dept, folks often have monetary concerns outweigh medical ones. Sure in the end they didn’t find anything, but as was stated before, this sounds like the kind of person that, if allowed to refuse, would likely file charges if something had been wrong.
One beer plus attitude can be misconstrued as being altered.
This is where a clear chart will make or break the case. Calling PD to a patients home after he leaves the MD’s office though? Sounds sketchy.
Thanks for covering this Kurt!
JS
Pure speculation on my part, but my guess would be Ms. California Lawyer took the case because she expects an out of court, “make it go away” settlement. Which I will not be surprised if she gets from Ambulance Service of Manchester, a private company.
I have NO speculation on why the plaintiff chose this particular ambulance-chaser (no offense Kurt).
CBEMT
I think we will get the answer to the “quick settlement” option fairly soon. If the case is removed to Federal court – that means the defendants are playing hard-ball. It will put alot more pressure (financial, time-wise and expertice-wise) on the Plaintiff and his counsel. If they are looking to settle they’ll let it bounce around in state court for while and make an offer.
Also – if Plaintiff’s counsel was looking for a settlement – why did she drag in 34 defendants (and might I add – these are not additional “deep-pocket” defendants… they are police officers, firefighters, hospital techs, etc.) All she needed to sue were the key players to get the insurers together to come up with an offer.
I am thinking she is trying to make a point in a Don Quixote attempt to slay some evil dragons.
I wonder exactly what the role of the police were. It would certainly mean different things if the patient was in police custody (for whatever reason) vs. the police restraining the patient at the instruction/request of EMS. Could the ambulance crew be somewhat “shielded” by the involvement of the police, who as Justin states have very different rules for detaining and transporting people?
As for the lawyer’s motivations, it might well be she’s looking to make a name for herself by being involved in a big precedent-setting case such as defining “medical kidnapping” or something like that.
mpatk
The protective custody issue is probably going to be a key factor in the case. Under what set of circumstances can a police office take a person into protective custody… and once in custody order them to be taken to a medical facility and examined?
Suing 34 defendants is probably not the best way to change policy or engage police and EMS in a thoughtful discussion of this difficult topic. Law suits can help force change when change is needed… this does not seem to be the type of scenario where the litigation-sledge-hammer approach is going to yeild a precident setting (game-changer) result.
there would have been a lawsuit anyway for the non-transport if he had dropped dead.
A person has a right to refuse medical treatment. The Plaintiff signed a AMA at the Dr’s office. The MD was probably covering his *** in case the man later did have a MI. After the “welfare check” the South Windsor police left and it was only at the instigation of Officer Magrey, from Manchester PD that they continued to be involved. He was out of bounds. The use of a request for exam form was inappropriate and out of bounds; the man didn’t exhibit altered mental status and knew who he was where he was and what was going on. The South Windsor dispatcher ‘loving it’, the inappropriate use of the form, was out of bounds. The use of force, is evidence that the officers didn’t truly believe the man was having a heart attack because use of force on a person having a heart attack, would be medically contraindicated and in fact can cause a MI, or they were idiots. In my opinion it is primarily the fault of the police involved.
C
Thanks for this input. It is a challenging situation. Firefighters, EMS personnel and cops do not get up in the morning planning to cause problems like this – and take healthy people against their will to a hospital. Mistakes happen… when you are a librarian – a book ends up on the wrong shelf. When you do what we do – there are more serious consequences. Fortunately the heavy handling did not make his condition worse.
The most challenging thing about this entire incident was not whether the man was actually having a heart attack – but whether he had the capacity to decline aid. EMS personnel cannot allow someone who lacks the capacity to decline aid, to refuse treatment… while as you say – a competent person has the absolute right to decline aid.
Its alot easier after the fact to figure out what they should have done but its alot harder when you are on the spot and will be held responsible.
Mr. Varone,
In a currently ongoing EMT class, we had to write a quick essay regarding this case, we did this based only on the information on the Courant's article. I was just curious if you knew how this lawsuit came to an end.
Our instructor said that the case was dismissed. I just couldn't believe that was the way it came to a conclusion.
Was the case dismissed? Was it taken to Federal Court and dropped by the Plaintiff?
Thank you so much!
Sergio
I just checked the docket and it appears to still be active – but it is hard to tell. There has definitely been alot of activity on the case and the narrowing of issues and defendants. Many of the individual defendants have been dismissed.
I have reached out to Mr. Schofield's attorney for an update. If she responds I will post the case status.
OK – the case is still active, they have depositions scheduled.