Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

December 29, 2005

There are enough mistakes here to go around.

Can we rewind a few days and have a do-over???

jack

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Larry

Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 12:19 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 29-Dec-05 17:04:49 Central Standard Time,

bombmedic1051@... writes:

6. The helicopters should be armed so that the slower helicopters have a

chance by shooting the faster ones out of the sky.

I can just see all the old military Dust Off medics drooling and starting to

twitch a little...

Jeff

Well, officially and technically 'skin ships' (DUSTOFF) were not authorized

either the gun sponsons or the " pigs " (M 60s) to mount on them....

I know of more than one outfit that was reputed to have an agreement for

both supply of weapons and ammo from a supported combat outfit.

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

December 30, 2005

<<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>>

Yes...despite our best efforts...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

<<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>>

Yes...despite our best efforts...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

Dudley,

I think we can all agree with you on this one.

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:

Who was right and who was wrong doesn't matter...we have all been sucker

punched in the eye over this one...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

Ah the plot begins to thicken.

As I said 20 versions by weeks end are likely, and as was said before the

truth is in the middle of all of those versions.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

Dudley,

I think we can all agree with you on this one.

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:

Who was right and who was wrong doesn't matter...we have all been sucker

punched in the eye over this one...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

Ah the plot begins to thicken.

As I said 20 versions by weeks end are likely, and as was said before the

truth is in the middle of all of those versions.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " .

Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals

say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local

cemetery is " stable " ......

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:

<<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>>

Yes...despite our best efforts...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " .

Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals

say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local

cemetery is " stable " ......

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:

<<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>>

Yes...despite our best efforts...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

I must have missed something. Last I heard the patient was said to be " stable " .

Stable simply means not getting worse. How many times have you seen hospitals

say " critical but stable " ? Oh, and keep in mind that everyone at the local

cemetery is " stable " ......

Tater

THEDUDMAN@... wrote:

<<<At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.>>>

Yes...despite our best efforts...

Dudley

Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

No winners in this gig. Dudley and Lou, you both put it well.

At least it sounds like the patient is improving; that is good news.

" The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but

because he loves what is behind him. " - GK Chesterton

---------------------------------

Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:24:08 P.M. Central Standard Time,

bbledsoe@... writes:

By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came

up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated.

So if the latest reports are dead on accurate that would mean that Baystar

had such a duty to act right?

They DID respond and indeed made the scene (not ins dispute as far as I can

tell) then were prevented from doing so by LPEMS and LPPD so the fault would

be on the side of those agencies?

Right?

Hence while you likely could bring suit (no make that you could bring suit)

against Baystar would the facts as presented in the last report not make the

argument that they did meet their duty to act but were prevented from doing

so? I'd think that Barstar becomes the best witness for the parties against

LPEMS and LPPD?

Yes, no, maybe?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:24:08 P.M. Central Standard Time,

bbledsoe@... writes:

By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came

up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated.

So if the latest reports are dead on accurate that would mean that Baystar

had such a duty to act right?

They DID respond and indeed made the scene (not ins dispute as far as I can

tell) then were prevented from doing so by LPEMS and LPPD so the fault would

be on the side of those agencies?

Right?

Hence while you likely could bring suit (no make that you could bring suit)

against Baystar would the facts as presented in the last report not make the

argument that they did meet their duty to act but were prevented from doing

so? I'd think that Barstar becomes the best witness for the parties against

LPEMS and LPPD?

Yes, no, maybe?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

call for any number of reasons.

As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone

number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to

respond....yes,

it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the

911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond.

Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient

gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands...

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

call for any number of reasons.

As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone

number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to

respond....yes,

it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got the

911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond.

Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient

gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands...

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

December 30, 2005

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

-Wes Ogilvie

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time,

krin135@... writes:

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

call for any number of reasons.

As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone

number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to

respond....yes,

it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got

the

911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond.

Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient

gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands...

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

December 30, 2005

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

-Wes Ogilvie

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time,

krin135@... writes:

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

call for any number of reasons.

As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone

number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to

respond....yes,

it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got

the

911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond.

Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient

gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands...

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

December 30, 2005

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

-Wes Ogilvie

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:38:19 PM Central Standard Time,

krin135@... writes:

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:03:11 Central Standard Time,

paramedicop@... writes:

Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

call for any number of reasons.

As far as I can tell, as soon as LPEMS gave the family Baystar's phone

number and Baystar accepted the call, that developed the duty to

respond....yes,

it's as a result of a discrete contract rather than a global, 'you've got

the

911 contract for the township' contract, but it is still a duty to respond.

Failing that duty would result in further delay in care, and if the patient

gets worse, then guys like Gene and Wes start rubbing their hands...

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:42:42 Central Standard Time,

ExLngHrn@... writes:

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops

on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first

to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

Actually, in the situation as described, if initial discovery showed that

LPEMS did in fact a: give Baystar's name and phone number to the family, and b:

gave Baystar verbal permission to take the run, then solid depositions from

the family and Baystar medics should be enough to having LPEMS and LPPD and

City crawfishing fast enough to make for at least a 7 figure settlement to the

family and the Baystar medics....

Increase that by a factor of three for the family if the patient has a bad

outcome that is traceable to the delay in treatment while the LPEMS supervisor

(who should have been evaluating the patient) was haranguing the Baystar

folks.

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 30-Dec-05 15:42:42 Central Standard Time,

ExLngHrn@... writes:

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops

on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first

to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

Actually, in the situation as described, if initial discovery showed that

LPEMS did in fact a: give Baystar's name and phone number to the family, and b:

gave Baystar verbal permission to take the run, then solid depositions from

the family and Baystar medics should be enough to having LPEMS and LPPD and

City crawfishing fast enough to make for at least a 7 figure settlement to the

family and the Baystar medics....

Increase that by a factor of three for the family if the patient has a bad

outcome that is traceable to the delay in treatment while the LPEMS supervisor

(who should have been evaluating the patient) was haranguing the Baystar

folks.

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:42:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,

ExLngHrn@... writes:

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops

on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first

to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

-Wes Ogilvie

Young Wes your profs at TU Law are smiling from ear to ear I bet. Spoken

like a true Trail Lawyer (I know you aren't one right now).

But again reality wise would you not name all of the above as potential

plaintiffs and maybe even file a few Doe's for good measure and then see

how

the chips fall?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

In a message dated 12/30/2005 3:42:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,

ExLngHrn@... writes:

Please note the hearty dose of realism here.

As an attorney, I'd probably sue anybody and everybody involved with the

call, including Baystar and the City of La Porte, the individual personnel

involved, and the entire city leadership from the EMS supervisors and cops

on

scene up to the Mayor and City Council.

Why? Deep pockets. Let's see who all has insurance and who will be first

to

break -- and " rat out " on the other defendants.

-Wes Ogilvie

Young Wes your profs at TU Law are smiling from ear to ear I bet. Spoken

like a true Trail Lawyer (I know you aren't one right now).

But again reality wise would you not name all of the above as potential

plaintiffs and maybe even file a few Doe's for good measure and then see

how

the chips fall?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for

its

stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials

retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the

original author.

December 30, 2005

Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that

all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal)

and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here

will

only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more

difficult to obtain.

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time,

baystarems@... writes:

Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an

officer, in the take down of my paramedic.

Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping

arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply

requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident.

My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time

was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of

a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call

emergency traffic.

December 30, 2005

Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that

all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal)

and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here

will

only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more

difficult to obtain.

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time,

baystarems@... writes:

Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an

officer, in the take down of my paramedic.

Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping

arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply

requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident.

My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time

was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of

a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call

emergency traffic.

December 30, 2005

Without giving any legal advice (or even purporting to), I'd suggest that

all parties involved consider letting the courts (both civil and criminal)

and/or political process resolve this dispute. Posting allegations on here

will

only bruise egos and make a just and equitable resolution all the more

difficult to obtain.

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:27:16 PM Central Standard Time,

baystarems@... writes:

Ray Nolan, the La Porte EMS director was also involved, along with an

officer, in the take down of my paramedic.

Did you ever believe that you would hear of one paramedic helping

arrest another paramedic just because he was doing his job and simply

requesting his supervisor to be there during the incident.

My paramedic did not know what was going on. All he knew at that time

was that he was being dispatched to a La Porte residence for a call of

a medical nature. He also knew he was cleared to respond to the call

emergency traffic.

December 30, 2005

Well let the blasting begin, but from the information I received the

call was a private call by the residents daughter which retrived the

phone number from LPEMS dispatcher to Baystar. It was dispatched and

recorded dispatch lines show that LPEMS was called and attempted to

roll the call to them with no confirmation that they were going to

dispatch a unit. Clearance was given to the unit to respond when

asked of the City. This is where LPEMS got involved and responded

then. Now, as it is in the districts I work in, should a outside

unit catch a run we will respond and take over the call beings it is

in our district. This is an easier way to handle it I believe, as

for LPEMS this is more of an ego trip rather than a severe breaking

of the law. Yes before i'm blasted the city has a permit clause, but

then the duty to act has been etablished with the call Baystar and

LPEMS never acted until late. There could have been a call to

Baystar canceling the unit enroute when the call was dispatched,

cancelled onscene would have been nice also. Looks like also LPEMS

was waiting for a service to setup and enforce this clause on and

Baystar just happen to fall in place at the right time for them.

Jeff

FF/EMT-P

Houston

December 30, 2005