Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:44:22.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liability Immunity as a Legal Defense for Recent Emergency Medical Services System Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

David L. Morgan ,
William R. Trail  and
Vicky A. Trompler
David L. Morgan*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas
William R. Trail
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Baylor University School of Law, Waco, Texas
Vicky A. Trompler
Affiliation:
Attorney, McCue and Lee, PC, Dallas, Texas
*
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75235-8579USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Although many emergency medical services (EMS) providers are concerned about liability litigation, no comprehensive, national studies of EMS appelate cases have been published. Information about these cases and the use of liability immunity (sovereign immunity, emergency medical care immunity, or Good Samaritan immunity) as a defense could be used for EMS risk management and better patient care.

Objective:

To review recent EMS system civil litigation cases to determine their common characteristics and the number that used liability immunity as a legal defense.

Methods:

An observational study of the WESTLAW computerized database of legal cases from all state and federal appellate courts. All legal cases that named a member of the EMS system as a defendant, involved either a patient-care incident or ambulance collision, and received an appellate court opinion from 1987 through 1992, were studied.

Results:

Eighty-six cases were identified and analyzed. Most cases (85%) were related to a patient-care incident, and 71 % of the cases involved a death or significant physical injury. More than 49% of the patient cases alleged inadequate assessment or treatment, and 27% alleged delay in ambulance arrival or no ambulance arrival. There were 11 cases (15%) that alleged no transport of the patient to the hospital. Liability immunity was used as a defense in 53% of the cases. The appellate courts ruled in favor of 68% of the defendants that did not use an immunity defense and in favor of 72% of those that did use liability immunity.

Conclusion:

There have been a large number of recent appellate cases involving EMS systems. The common characteristics of many of these cases demonstrate the need for providing rapid ambulance arrival, proper assessment and treatment, and rapid patient transportation to a hospital. Although liability immunity was used as a legal defense by most EMS system defendants, the appellate court outcome was similar regardless of its use.

Keywords

ambulance collisionappellate courtscase lawemergency medical servicesGood Samaritanlegallegal immunityliabilitylitigationnegligenceparamedicsovereign immunity
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 82 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Presented at the National Association of EMS Physicians 10th Anniversary Scientific Assembly, Portland, Oregon, 11–14 August 1994

References

1. Health Security Act. Washington, D.C.: United States Printing Office 1993.Google Scholar
2. Atkins, JM, Wainscott, MP: Role of emergency medical services. Heart & Lung 1991;20:576–580.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Soler, JM, Montes, MF, Egol, AB, et al. : The 10-year malpractice experience of a large urban EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14:982–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Goldberg, RJ, Zautcke, JL, Koenigsberg, MD, et al. : A review of prehospital care litigation in a large metropolitan EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ayres, RJ: Legal considerations in prehospital care. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1993;11:853–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Shanaberger, CJ: Legal Issues, In: Kuehl, A (ed), Prehospital Systems and Medical Oversight, 2nd ed. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby 1994, pp 280–293.Google Scholar
7. Keeton, WP, Dobbs, DB, Keeton, RE, Owen, DG: Immunities. In: Keeton, WP (ed), Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co, 1984. pp 1032–1076.Google Scholar
8. Mapel, FB, Weigel, GL: Good Samaritan laws—Who needs them? The current state of Good Samaritan protection in the United States. South Texas Law J 1982;21:327–354.Google Scholar
9. Morgan, DL, Wainscott, MP, Knowles, HC: Emergency medical services liability in the United States. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9:214–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Pepe, PE, Bonnin, MJ, Mattox, KL: Regulating the scope of EMS. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Selden, BS, Schnitzer, PG, Nolan, FX: Medicolegal documentation of prehospital triage. Ann Emerg Med 1990:19:547–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Auerback, JS, Morris, JA, Phillips, JB, et al. : An analysis of ambulance accidents in Tennessee. JAMA 1987;258:1487–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hickman, JD: It's time to call 911 for government immunity. Case W Res Law Rev 1993:43:1067.Google Scholar
14. 57 Am Jur 2nd: Municipal, School, and State Tort liability, S 65.Google Scholar