By David Givot
I cannot and don’t want to even try to imagine the nightmare that the family of a Minnesota teen who froze to death is going through. In the face of any grief, it is common to first try to understand and then assign blame.
A lawsuit is completely expected in the absence of any other relief. But is it proper?
EMS providers are trained that a patient is not dead until the patient is warm and dead based on anecdotal reports of survival after prolonged exposure to severe cold. The only exceptions are for a patient with ice formation in the airway or a chest wall so frozen that compressions are not possible.
Since I don’t know any more about this case than what I read in the news story, it would be improper and unfair for me to judge or second guess the provider’s actions. However, I can analyze from the information I have by asking three questions.
Was there is a policy/protocol that requires patients to be, as the news story states, “cold in a warm environment?”
Was no effort made to warm and revive the patient?
Was no specific information available about the patient’s down-time?
If the answers to all three are yes, then it appears the providers committed a substantial breach of duty.
However, in the purest sense, breach is not enough for a finding of negligence. Before any or all of these providers can be held liable for negligence, the breach must have been both the actual and proximate cause of the death.
On the facts I have, I don’t see it.
On the other hand, in an administrative action, the breach of duty is all that is necessary to discipline the license, certification or employment status.
Whether this patient could have been resuscitated will never be known. But this call and that question (I imagine) will forever haunt of the providers who responded to it and will forever torment the family the patient left behind.
Cases like this are tragic beyond words and must likewise be a constant reminder of the immeasurable responsibility EMS providers accept.
If you are going to do the job, do the whole job to complete an assessment, consult medical direction as needed and document exam findings and treatment decisions. Do the job and do it well.
About the author
David Givot, Esq., graduated from the UCLA Center for Prehospital Care (formerly DFH) in June 1989 and spent most of the next decade working as a Paramedic responding to 911 in Glendale, CA, with the (then BLS only) fire department. By the end of 1998, he was traveling around the country working with distressed EMS agencies teaching improved field provider performance through better communication and leadership practices. David then moved into the position of director of operations for the largest ambulance provider in the Maryland. Now, back in Los Angeles, he has earned his law degree and is a practicing Defense Attorney still looking to the future of EMS. In addition to defending EMS Providers, both on the job and off, he has created TheLegalGuardian.com as a vital step toward improving the state of EMS through information and education designed to protect EMS professionals - and agencies - nationwide. David is a member of the EMS1 Editorial Advisory Board. David can be contacted via e-mail at david.givot@ems1.com.