Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I admit that I have very little EMS experience, but I am having trouble understanding these squabbles. Why are the cities (La Porte, and now Texas City) putting the medics themselves in the middle of these squabbles? If the cities want to set an example, which is clearly what they were doing here, why don't they fine the providers heavily? This seems to be getting ridiculous. Chris EMS driver arrested for violating ordinance By TJ Aulds The Daily News Published January 28, 2006 TEXAS CITY — Ambulance driver Ricky picked up an elderly patient at Mainland Medical Center on Friday and took her home to Ashton Parke Care Center. An hour later, the 22-year-old nursing student was in handcuffs. , an emergency medical technician for Windsor EMS, was charged with violating Texas City's controversial ambulance provider ordinance. After dropped off his patient, he was approached by Texas City EMS Director Matt , who had followed him from the hospital, and Fire Marshal Rothrock, the city's public safety code enforcement officer. They told him he was going to be cited for violating the ordinance. The decade-old ordinance was created to regulate ambulance and Emergency Medical Services in the city. It provides that only authorized or contracted firms can provide medical transports within the city limits. refused to sign the citation, which was actually a hand-written note from the fire marshal on a fire prevention bureau inspection sheet. The resulting argument ended with Rothrock calling for ' arrest. " I'm in shock — this is entirely ridiculous, " said shortly after his parents paid a $256 fine to spring him from the city jail. " I am about helping my patients and treating my patients. Now I have an arrest on my record. " said he refused to sign the form from Rothrock because he said it was written in such a way that he would be admitting guilt. He also said his bosses encouraged him not to sign. said he plans to fight the charges in court. Rothrock said left her no options when he refused to sign the citation. " He was on the phone with his boss and basically told me that he was told not to sign it and `just take me to jail,' " said Rothrock. said he begged to sign the citation, which would not have resulted in a fine. " I didn't want to see anyone arrested — that was not our intent, " he said. ' boss Lynn said his company, which operates out of an office on state Highway 3 just north of Dickinson, said the ambulance was sent because a member of the hospital staff requested a medical transport. Mainland Medical Center spokesman Harold Fattig confirmed a " brand new " staff member had called Windsor requesting the medical transport. Fattig said the employee was unaware that such a request had to be routed through the county ambulance service dispatch. Fattig said no one at Windsor informed the nurse that the company was restricted from providing the service. " We only found out about this Thursday, " Fattig said. " We have 800 people we have been trying to inform of the process. It is going to take a while. " The old ordinance was loosely enforced for the better part of 10 years. Fire Chief Gerald Grimm admitted that enforcement in the past was limited to letters being sent to firms threatening citations. That all changed last week when a new EMS system was instituted. Texas City, La Marque, Dickinson, Hitchcock and the county have collaborated to form a cooperative ambulance service. A letter from Grimm to private ambulance operators warned that unless called on by the new EMS program, they were not allowed to provide medical transports in the city. Medical transports are generally nonemergency transfers between hospitals and nursing homes that require an ambulance. Medical transports are considered the money-making end of the ambulance business. Lynn joined a chorus of ambulance company officials and nursing home operators during a meeting with Grimm on Thursday criticizing the program as unfair and undercutting free enterprise. Friday's incident prompted Grimm to accuse Windsor EMS and of orchestrating his arrest " by refusing to cooperate with a peace officer in the performance of her duties after witnessing a violation of law, following several warnings previously issued to the company. " Lynn called Grimm's accusation " ludicrous " and said his company would not risk its reputation or employee's welfare by forcing the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Well, all I have to say after all of the last thread is that these issues are becoming ridiculous. However, some of these transfer services are giving cities no choice. And I am refering to those that are violating laws and ordinances. Beit not stocking units properly, not staffing properly, running hot to a transfer to avoid being late, or getting desperate to run a 911 call. There are just way too many services popping up. And unfortunately this may be a good way to control these out of control services. But now I just hope some of these cities are making sure their 911 providers have enough units to cover 911 and transfers otherwise the pt is getting the short end of the stick, whether it's a 911 pt or a tranfer pt. Salvador Capuchino EMTP --- mgardenssafety wrote: > I admit that I have very little EMS experience, but > I am having > trouble understanding these squabbles. Why are the > cities (La Porte, > and now Texas City) putting the medics themselves in > the middle of > these squabbles? > > If the cities want to set an example, which is > clearly what they were > doing here, why don't they fine the providers > heavily? > > This seems to be getting ridiculous. > > Chris > > > EMS driver arrested for violating ordinance > > By TJ Aulds > The Daily News > > Published January 28, 2006 > > TEXAS CITY — Ambulance driver Ricky picked up > an elderly > patient at Mainland Medical Center on Friday and > took her home to > Ashton Parke Care Center. > > An hour later, the 22-year-old nursing student was > in handcuffs. > > , an emergency medical technician for Windsor > EMS, was charged > with violating Texas City's controversial ambulance > provider > ordinance. > > After dropped off his patient, he was > approached by Texas City > EMS Director Matt , who had followed him from > the hospital, and > Fire Marshal Rothrock, the city's public > safety code > enforcement officer. > > They told him he was going to be cited for violating > the ordinance. > > The decade-old ordinance was created to regulate > ambulance and > Emergency Medical Services in the city. > > It provides that only authorized or contracted firms > can provide > medical transports within the city limits. > > refused to sign the citation, which was > actually a hand-written > note from the fire marshal on a fire prevention > bureau inspection > sheet. > > The resulting argument ended with Rothrock calling > for ' arrest. > > " I'm in shock — this is entirely ridiculous, " > said shortly > after his parents paid a $256 fine to spring him > from the city > jail. " I am about helping my patients and treating > my patients. Now I > have an arrest on my record. " > > said he refused to sign the form from Rothrock > because he said > it was written in such a way that he would be > admitting guilt. He > also said his bosses encouraged him not to sign. > > said he plans to fight the charges in court. > > Rothrock said left her no options when he > refused to sign the > citation. > > " He was on the phone with his boss and basically > told me that he was > told not to sign it and `just take me to jail,' " > said Rothrock. > > said he begged to sign the citation, > which would not > have resulted in a fine. > > " I didn't want to see anyone arrested — that was not > our intent, " he > said. > > ' boss Lynn said his company, which > operates out of an > office on state Highway 3 just north of Dickinson, > said the ambulance > was sent because a member of the hospital staff > requested a medical > transport. > > Mainland Medical Center spokesman Harold Fattig > confirmed a " brand > new " staff member had called Windsor requesting the > medical > transport. Fattig said the employee was unaware that > such a request > had to be routed through the county ambulance > service dispatch. > > Fattig said no one at Windsor informed the nurse > that the company was > restricted from providing the service. > > " We only found out about this Thursday, " Fattig > said. " We have 800 > people we have been trying to inform of the process. > It is going to > take a while. " > > The old ordinance was loosely enforced for the > better part of 10 > years. Fire Chief Gerald Grimm admitted that > enforcement in the past > was limited to letters being sent to firms > threatening citations. > > That all changed last week when a new EMS system was > instituted. > Texas City, La Marque, Dickinson, Hitchcock and the > county have > collaborated to form a cooperative ambulance > service. > > A letter from Grimm to private ambulance operators > warned that unless > called on by the new EMS program, they were not > allowed to provide > medical transports in the city. > > Medical transports are generally nonemergency > transfers between > hospitals and nursing homes that require an > ambulance. > > Medical transports are considered the money-making > end of the > ambulance business. > > Lynn joined a chorus of ambulance company officials > and nursing home > operators during a meeting with Grimm on Thursday > criticizing the > program as unfair and undercutting free enterprise. > > Friday's incident prompted Grimm to accuse Windsor > EMS and of > orchestrating his arrest " by refusing to cooperate > with a peace > officer in the performance of her duties after > witnessing a violation > of law, following several warnings previously issued > to the company. " > > Lynn called Grimm's accusation " ludicrous " and said > his company would > not risk its reputation or employee's welfare by > forcing the issue. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 No, we must thank our city fathers for protecting our citizens from those evil profit seeking, money grubbing private ambulance services and the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging minions that work for them. (For those that don't recognize it, orange level sarcasm mode on. ) Larry RN EMT-P Houston " 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! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Before this gets out of control with the rumors and the speculations, let me give some insite to this situtation. I am the EMS Director for Texas City EMS and the facts that I state here are that, they are the facts of the case. The ordinance that was enforced was brought to law in 1993. Anyone who knows about the EMS in South Galveston County is aware that the ordinance was established to get private providers to bid the RFP in the area for the 911 service. This ordinance allows the City to provide a permit to ambulance providers so that they may control the transport of non emergent patients in the city. Previous contractors of the south Galveston Area enjoyed the " exclusive " right to non emergent transport to help subsidize the service they were providing to the low paying 911 side of the equation. When Gold Star quit the county without completing their 3 year contract, the Government officials of the area cities got together for well over 4 months to find out how to provide a cost effective EMS system, both 911 and transport. The way they did this is to provide the exclusivity right to non emergent transports to the Galveston Health District, Galveston EMS, and the profits made by GEMS on the non emergent transfers were then divided in half, 50% going to GEMS who also provides 911 service to some of the incorportated as well as the unincorporated areas of the county and 50% goes back into the city of origination to help defray the cost of the 911 system. To make this easy to understand, if GEMS makes $100 profit off of a non emergent transfer in Texas City, they give $50 of that back to the city to subsidize the cost of the 911 service. This is the only way to reduce the cost of providing EMS service to the citizens and therefore, keeps the citizens from having to pay more taxes to cover the non paying population. The only way the system will work is enforcement of the exclusivity right. Windsor EMS had received 4 warnings prior to this incident. I personnaly was on scene, requesting the EMT to sign a document which was only a warning. The signature purly said, " Copy Received by:_______________ " and he was advised by his employer not to sign the document. Poor advise. I do truly believe that the EMT felt he had authorization to do the transport since he had an authorization number given to him by his employer. Later, we find, that the call originated from the facility and no authorization number could have been given because the call did not come through the non emergency dispatch number. Windsor EMS used their employee for the press they got from the incident. Windsor EMS was wrong in violating the city ordinance. I spent over an hour and a half trying to get the EMT to sign the document but if you commit a crime, and fail to cooperate with law enforcement, you must suffer the consequences. Any questions, feel free to contact me off list at mparker@texas-city- tx.org. Matt EMS Administrator Texas City EMS > > No, we must thank our city fathers for protecting our citizens from those evil profit seeking, money grubbing private ambulance services and the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging minions that work for them. > > (For those that don't recognize it, orange level sarcasm mode on. ) > > Larry RN EMT-P > Houston > > > " 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! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Before this gets out of control with the rumors and the speculations, let me give some insite to this situtation. I am the EMS Director for Texas City EMS and the facts that I state here are that, they are the facts of the case. The ordinance that was enforced was brought to law in 1993. Anyone who knows about the EMS in South Galveston County is aware that the ordinance was established to get private providers to bid the RFP in the area for the 911 service. This ordinance allows the City to provide a permit to ambulance providers so that they may control the transport of non emergent patients in the city. Previous contractors of the south Galveston Area enjoyed the " exclusive " right to non emergent transport to help subsidize the service they were providing to the low paying 911 side of the equation. When Gold Star quit the county without completing their 3 year contract, the Government officials of the area cities got together for well over 4 months to find out how to provide a cost effective EMS system, both 911 and transport. The way they did this is to provide the exclusivity right to non emergent transports to the Galveston Health District, Galveston EMS, and the profits made by GEMS on the non emergent transfers were then divided in half, 50% going to GEMS who also provides 911 service to some of the incorportated as well as the unincorporated areas of the county and 50% goes back into the city of origination to help defray the cost of the 911 system. To make this easy to understand, if GEMS makes $100 profit off of a non emergent transfer in Texas City, they give $50 of that back to the city to subsidize the cost of the 911 service. This is the only way to reduce the cost of providing EMS service to the citizens and therefore, keeps the citizens from having to pay more taxes to cover the non paying population. The only way the system will work is enforcement of the exclusivity right. Windsor EMS had received 4 warnings prior to this incident. I personnaly was on scene, requesting the EMT to sign a document which was only a warning. The signature purly said, " Copy Received by:_______________ " and he was advised by his employer not to sign the document. Poor advise. I do truly believe that the EMT felt he had authorization to do the transport since he had an authorization number given to him by his employer. Later, we find, that the call originated from the facility and no authorization number could have been given because the call did not come through the non emergency dispatch number. Windsor EMS used their employee for the press they got from the incident. Windsor EMS was wrong in violating the city ordinance. I spent over an hour and a half trying to get the EMT to sign the document but if you commit a crime, and fail to cooperate with law enforcement, you must suffer the consequences. Any questions, feel free to contact me off list at mparker@texas-city- tx.org. Matt EMS Administrator Texas City EMS > > No, we must thank our city fathers for protecting our citizens from those evil profit seeking, money grubbing private ambulance services and the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging minions that work for them. > > (For those that don't recognize it, orange level sarcasm mode on. ) > > Larry RN EMT-P > Houston > > > " 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! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 > Windsor EMS had received 4 warnings prior to this incident. > I personnaly was on scene, requesting the EMT to sign a document > which was only a warning. The signature purly said, " Copy Received > by:_______________ " and he was advised by his employer not to sign > the document. > I spent over an hour and a half trying to get the EMT to > sign the document but if you commit a crime, and fail to cooperate > with law enforcement, you must suffer the consequences. So here's an interesting question: if law enforcement was only attempting to issue a warning (for which no signature can be required because a warning isn't a promise to do any particular thing, like signing a citation is a promise to appear)... what was the medic actually arrested for? If for Violation of City Ordinance, one could posit that the VCO arrest was in fact retailatory for refusing to sign the warning... and could further posit that a person acting in the capacity of EMS Director was using undue influence or even official oppression to get the medic to sign a document that shouldn't require a signature, then arresting the medic for a crime for which a warning was going to be given in the first place. Right or wrong, were I the employee of Windsor EMS I'd be hiring a good attorney to go after the company for putting me in that situation and providing a false approval number, and after Texas City PD, EMS, Fire, etc. for their actions as law enforcement and in their official positions. If you're going to give a warning, give a warning. If you're going to give a citation, give a citation. If you're going to make an arrest, make an arrest. If you want the deep pockets, cite the company... not the individual medics. Why on earth these folks are even BOTHERING to go after the individual medics I have no idea... although if I *WERE* going to go after the medics, I'd do it with the clear and plain intent of arresting BOTH of them so that I could impound the ambulance secondary to arrest. But that's just me... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 > Windsor EMS had received 4 warnings prior to this incident. > I personnaly was on scene, requesting the EMT to sign a document > which was only a warning. The signature purly said, " Copy Received > by:_______________ " and he was advised by his employer not to sign > the document. > I spent over an hour and a half trying to get the EMT to > sign the document but if you commit a crime, and fail to cooperate > with law enforcement, you must suffer the consequences. So here's an interesting question: if law enforcement was only attempting to issue a warning (for which no signature can be required because a warning isn't a promise to do any particular thing, like signing a citation is a promise to appear)... what was the medic actually arrested for? If for Violation of City Ordinance, one could posit that the VCO arrest was in fact retailatory for refusing to sign the warning... and could further posit that a person acting in the capacity of EMS Director was using undue influence or even official oppression to get the medic to sign a document that shouldn't require a signature, then arresting the medic for a crime for which a warning was going to be given in the first place. Right or wrong, were I the employee of Windsor EMS I'd be hiring a good attorney to go after the company for putting me in that situation and providing a false approval number, and after Texas City PD, EMS, Fire, etc. for their actions as law enforcement and in their official positions. If you're going to give a warning, give a warning. If you're going to give a citation, give a citation. If you're going to make an arrest, make an arrest. If you want the deep pockets, cite the company... not the individual medics. Why on earth these folks are even BOTHERING to go after the individual medics I have no idea... although if I *WERE* going to go after the medics, I'd do it with the clear and plain intent of arresting BOTH of them so that I could impound the ambulance secondary to arrest. But that's just me... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Matt - Was the warning being issued on an official warning document? Or was it, as the article said, a handwritten document on plain paper? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure you're facing challenges down there being the new (relatively) service and all, and it sounds like you handled this better than your neighbors - waiting until the call was complete and the patient secure at their destination before challenging the smuggler-EMS service... is there a link to the actual ordinance so we could take a read and see how yours is structured? Mike > it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are > paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you > have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the > speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive > as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to > ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are > you going to jail? > Matt > > > > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Matt - Was the warning being issued on an official warning document? Or was it, as the article said, a handwritten document on plain paper? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure you're facing challenges down there being the new (relatively) service and all, and it sounds like you handled this better than your neighbors - waiting until the call was complete and the patient secure at their destination before challenging the smuggler-EMS service... is there a link to the actual ordinance so we could take a read and see how yours is structured? Mike > it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are > paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you > have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the > speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive > as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to > ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are > you going to jail? > Matt > > > > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I am just curious....What was the medic arrested for? What was the actual charge? If it was only a warning, he has the right of refusal to sign it. When you sign a traffic citation all you are doing is signing a " Promise to Appear " before a magistrate for a court date. If you refuse to sign the promise to appear then the officer's next course of action is to take you before the magistrate..ie: arrest you!!! Secondly, if it was a city ordinance, it could only be a finable offense which means by taking him to jail, you may have opened yourself up for a serious legal battle. Now, mind you, if he got belligerent and was acting out to the point of being disorderly then I can see a disorderly conduct charge. But just refusing to sign a " warning " is not a criminal act. And finally, taking a civil matter like this out on a medic who's only concern is the health and well-being of the citizen he was caring for is just wrong. The medic couldn't care less about the politics of the company he works for or for the politics of the cities involved here. He is just trying to do right by the patient. The company and the city don't care about the patient. All they care about is who gets the check that medicare will cut to pay for the ride. So why even mess with the medic that is trying to do what he is trained to do so he can make his $12 per hour so he can scratch out his living. And now because you and the company put him in the middle, he might lose his license due to an unnecessary arrest record. If you were gonna go after anyone you should have had the company fined for operating without the proper license/permits. Jim Higginbotham TX EMT-B/LEO mpmedics wrote: it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are you going to jail? Matt > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I just don't get this line of thinking AT ALL. If it's an issue with WINDSOR EMS, why bother with Medics and EMT's? You have a city attorney, county attorney, and criminal district attorney. File injunctions, fine them, take them to court, flog them with soggy noodles, but for the love of god and all that's holy, leave the medics and EMT's out of this. The last two incidents illustrated a very bold point; EVERYONE is just trying to do their job. The poor schmuck EMT being told not to sign, the fire marshal who is enforcing an EMS ordinance (I still don't get that, was he on fire?)The EMS administrator, The ER nurse, the slurpee guy at the 7-11, the blind homeless person who " saw it all " , Try and think outside the box....awww, never mind, write me a citation for not signing this post. Re: Re: Here We Go Again I am just curious....What was the medic arrested for? What was the actual charge? If it was only a warning, he has the right of refusal to sign it. When you sign a traffic citation all you are doing is signing a " Promise to Appear " before a magistrate for a court date. If you refuse to sign the promise to appear then the officer's next course of action is to take you before the magistrate..ie: arrest you!!! Secondly, if it was a city ordinance, it could only be a finable offense which means by taking him to jail, you may have opened yourself up for a serious legal battle. Now, mind you, if he got belligerent and was acting out to the point of being disorderly then I can see a disorderly conduct charge. But just refusing to sign a " warning " is not a criminal act. And finally, taking a civil matter like this out on a medic who's only concern is the health and well-being of the citizen he was caring for is just wrong. The medic couldn't care less about the politics of the company he works for or for the politics of the cities involved here. He is just trying to do right by the patient. The company and the city don't care about the patient. All they care about is who gets the check that medicare will cut to pay for the ride. So why even mess with the medic that is trying to do what he is trained to do so he can make his $12 per hour so he can scratch out his living. And now because you and the company put him in the middle, he might lose his license due to an unnecessary arrest record. If you were gonna go after anyone you should have had the company fined for operating without the proper license/permits. Jim Higginbotham TX EMT-B/LEO mpmedics wrote: it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are you going to jail? Matt > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I just don't get this line of thinking AT ALL. If it's an issue with WINDSOR EMS, why bother with Medics and EMT's? You have a city attorney, county attorney, and criminal district attorney. File injunctions, fine them, take them to court, flog them with soggy noodles, but for the love of god and all that's holy, leave the medics and EMT's out of this. The last two incidents illustrated a very bold point; EVERYONE is just trying to do their job. The poor schmuck EMT being told not to sign, the fire marshal who is enforcing an EMS ordinance (I still don't get that, was he on fire?)The EMS administrator, The ER nurse, the slurpee guy at the 7-11, the blind homeless person who " saw it all " , Try and think outside the box....awww, never mind, write me a citation for not signing this post. Re: Re: Here We Go Again I am just curious....What was the medic arrested for? What was the actual charge? If it was only a warning, he has the right of refusal to sign it. When you sign a traffic citation all you are doing is signing a " Promise to Appear " before a magistrate for a court date. If you refuse to sign the promise to appear then the officer's next course of action is to take you before the magistrate..ie: arrest you!!! Secondly, if it was a city ordinance, it could only be a finable offense which means by taking him to jail, you may have opened yourself up for a serious legal battle. Now, mind you, if he got belligerent and was acting out to the point of being disorderly then I can see a disorderly conduct charge. But just refusing to sign a " warning " is not a criminal act. And finally, taking a civil matter like this out on a medic who's only concern is the health and well-being of the citizen he was caring for is just wrong. The medic couldn't care less about the politics of the company he works for or for the politics of the cities involved here. He is just trying to do right by the patient. The company and the city don't care about the patient. All they care about is who gets the check that medicare will cut to pay for the ride. So why even mess with the medic that is trying to do what he is trained to do so he can make his $12 per hour so he can scratch out his living. And now because you and the company put him in the middle, he might lose his license due to an unnecessary arrest record. If you were gonna go after anyone you should have had the company fined for operating without the proper license/permits. Jim Higginbotham TX EMT-B/LEO mpmedics wrote: it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are you going to jail? Matt > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The fire marshall is a Texas Peace Officer. The EMT was in violation of the ordinance by operating the ambulance inside the city without a permit. Much the same as if you get a ticket in Houston for violating the same or similar ordinance. The warning was a judgement call on the FM, just as if you get a warning for a speeding ticket. When the EMT became beligerent he changed the situation. The FM is not required to give a warning, she is required to enforce the ordinance. He chose to take it from a warning to being put in jail, at his employers request. The warning was on official Fire Marshall Notice form, not a blank piece of paper.. > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The fire marshall is a Texas Peace Officer. The EMT was in violation of the ordinance by operating the ambulance inside the city without a permit. Much the same as if you get a ticket in Houston for violating the same or similar ordinance. The warning was a judgement call on the FM, just as if you get a warning for a speeding ticket. When the EMT became beligerent he changed the situation. The FM is not required to give a warning, she is required to enforce the ordinance. He chose to take it from a warning to being put in jail, at his employers request. The warning was on official Fire Marshall Notice form, not a blank piece of paper.. > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I think maybe pulling the unit over and ordering them out of the city would do just fine. Maybe this would have played out different in La Porte if they had pulled the unit over and ordered the medics to return to their station or escort them out of the city limits would have avoided the huge fiasco. La Porte had knowledge all they had to do was notify PD to do so if spotted. Salvador Capuchino EMT-P --- Mike wrote: > > TEXAS CITY — Ambulance driver Ricky picked > up an elderly > > patient at Mainland Medical Center on Friday and > took her home to > > Ashton Parke Care Center. > > > > An hour later, the 22-year-old nursing student was > in handcuffs. > > > > , an emergency medical technician for Windsor > EMS, was charged > > with violating Texas City's controversial > ambulance provider > > ordinance. > > What about ' partner? No mention here... > > Mike > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 With all due respect MR Mod 2 ( Why do you not identify yourself as the posting rules suggest that everyone sign their posts, or are you leading from behind instead of the front) the issue involved EMS personnel, so this makes it an EMS issue that if other EMS Directors, etc are reading, maybe it will keep another such incident from occuring. Everyone here is entitled to voice their opinions and maybe after reading some responses amy affect the writers opinion. Salvador Capuchino EMT-Paramedic Not afraid to sign my posts, opinions, etc --- temsf_mod2 wrote: > Group > > This thread about the arrest of a Windsor EMS medic > has resurfaced. > While a very interesting subject it more of a law > enforcement > discussion than a discussion about EMS. > The orginal post that has started the latest round > of messages did ask > people with questions to email him off list and that > is a good idea. > > Thanks > Mod 2 > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I have stayed out of this discussion because I don't have a dog in the fight. The concept of exclusivity in ambulance ordinances was first used in cities such as Dallas and Houston (and throughout the US) to limit emergency responses to the city-operated ambulance provider (usually the FD). This was in response to the old system where there were multiple for-profit operators providing a patchwork response system. However, these cities did not want to provide the more profitable non-emergency transports. They did elect, in most instances, to permit those services who provided non-911 care and occasionally used them for 911 back-up if they were so equipped. When Jack Stout developed his Public Utility Model (PUM), he sought to assure that all business (911 and non-911) went to the designated contractor. Thus ordinances were established that allowed only the designated service to pick-up and transport within the city. When this was challenged in court (sorry, I don't have the cite--but early 1980s), the courts ruled that the ordinance was legal, but also ruled that a service could pick-up outside the city and bring a patient into the city or pick-up a patient in the city and deliver them outside the city. Fort Worth and other cities (Waxahachie, Tyler, Tulsa, Oklahoma City) that use systems that follow the Stout model (MedStar, ETMC EMS, EMSA) have these ordinances. On several occasions in Waxahachie we were asked (medical director and fire chief) to enforce the ordinance when small transfer services came to town. Generally, the fire chief would give the operator a call and send out a copy of the ordinance and things would end there. We never wanted to even possibly compromise patient care. It amazes me that these actions in South Texas are met with such surprise and indignation when they have been a part of the EMS landscape for over 20 years, While the free-market should prevail, all one has to do is look at the medical helicopter industry and see that EMS, in whatever form, never can manage itself and government must step in. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Card-Carrying Conservative Midlothian, Texas Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise! http://proemseducators.com/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I have stayed out of this discussion because I don't have a dog in the fight. The concept of exclusivity in ambulance ordinances was first used in cities such as Dallas and Houston (and throughout the US) to limit emergency responses to the city-operated ambulance provider (usually the FD). This was in response to the old system where there were multiple for-profit operators providing a patchwork response system. However, these cities did not want to provide the more profitable non-emergency transports. They did elect, in most instances, to permit those services who provided non-911 care and occasionally used them for 911 back-up if they were so equipped. When Jack Stout developed his Public Utility Model (PUM), he sought to assure that all business (911 and non-911) went to the designated contractor. Thus ordinances were established that allowed only the designated service to pick-up and transport within the city. When this was challenged in court (sorry, I don't have the cite--but early 1980s), the courts ruled that the ordinance was legal, but also ruled that a service could pick-up outside the city and bring a patient into the city or pick-up a patient in the city and deliver them outside the city. Fort Worth and other cities (Waxahachie, Tyler, Tulsa, Oklahoma City) that use systems that follow the Stout model (MedStar, ETMC EMS, EMSA) have these ordinances. On several occasions in Waxahachie we were asked (medical director and fire chief) to enforce the ordinance when small transfer services came to town. Generally, the fire chief would give the operator a call and send out a copy of the ordinance and things would end there. We never wanted to even possibly compromise patient care. It amazes me that these actions in South Texas are met with such surprise and indignation when they have been a part of the EMS landscape for over 20 years, While the free-market should prevail, all one has to do is look at the medical helicopter industry and see that EMS, in whatever form, never can manage itself and government must step in. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Card-Carrying Conservative Midlothian, Texas Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise! http://proemseducators.com/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I have stayed out of this discussion because I don't have a dog in the fight. The concept of exclusivity in ambulance ordinances was first used in cities such as Dallas and Houston (and throughout the US) to limit emergency responses to the city-operated ambulance provider (usually the FD). This was in response to the old system where there were multiple for-profit operators providing a patchwork response system. However, these cities did not want to provide the more profitable non-emergency transports. They did elect, in most instances, to permit those services who provided non-911 care and occasionally used them for 911 back-up if they were so equipped. When Jack Stout developed his Public Utility Model (PUM), he sought to assure that all business (911 and non-911) went to the designated contractor. Thus ordinances were established that allowed only the designated service to pick-up and transport within the city. When this was challenged in court (sorry, I don't have the cite--but early 1980s), the courts ruled that the ordinance was legal, but also ruled that a service could pick-up outside the city and bring a patient into the city or pick-up a patient in the city and deliver them outside the city. Fort Worth and other cities (Waxahachie, Tyler, Tulsa, Oklahoma City) that use systems that follow the Stout model (MedStar, ETMC EMS, EMSA) have these ordinances. On several occasions in Waxahachie we were asked (medical director and fire chief) to enforce the ordinance when small transfer services came to town. Generally, the fire chief would give the operator a call and send out a copy of the ordinance and things would end there. We never wanted to even possibly compromise patient care. It amazes me that these actions in South Texas are met with such surprise and indignation when they have been a part of the EMS landscape for over 20 years, While the free-market should prevail, all one has to do is look at the medical helicopter industry and see that EMS, in whatever form, never can manage itself and government must step in. E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Card-Carrying Conservative Midlothian, Texas Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise! http://proemseducators.com/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Hey Mike. Go to www.municode.com <http://www.municode.com/> , their ordinances (and others) are posted there. Jack _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:12 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Here We Go Again Matt - Was the warning being issued on an official warning document? Or was it, as the article said, a handwritten document on plain paper? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure you're facing challenges down there being the new (relatively) service and all, and it sounds like you handled this better than your neighbors - waiting until the call was complete and the patient secure at their destination before challenging the smuggler-EMS service... is there a link to the actual ordinance so we could take a read and see how yours is structured? Mike > it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are > paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you > have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the > speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive > as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to > ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are > you going to jail? > Matt > > > > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Hey Mike. Go to www.municode.com <http://www.municode.com/> , their ordinances (and others) are posted there. Jack _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:12 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Here We Go Again Matt - Was the warning being issued on an official warning document? Or was it, as the article said, a handwritten document on plain paper? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure you're facing challenges down there being the new (relatively) service and all, and it sounds like you handled this better than your neighbors - waiting until the call was complete and the patient secure at their destination before challenging the smuggler-EMS service... is there a link to the actual ordinance so we could take a read and see how yours is structured? Mike > it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are > paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you > have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the > speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive > as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to > ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are > you going to jail? > Matt > > > > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Hey Mike. Go to www.municode.com <http://www.municode.com/> , their ordinances (and others) are posted there. Jack _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:12 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Here We Go Again Matt - Was the warning being issued on an official warning document? Or was it, as the article said, a handwritten document on plain paper? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure you're facing challenges down there being the new (relatively) service and all, and it sounds like you handled this better than your neighbors - waiting until the call was complete and the patient secure at their destination before challenging the smuggler-EMS service... is there a link to the actual ordinance so we could take a read and see how yours is structured? Mike > it boils down to providing cost effective EMS to the Citizens we are > paid to provide service for. You don't get to choose the laws you > have to obey, you just have to obey them. If you don't like the > speed limit being 65, do you get to just do what you want and drive > as fast as you want? If you get stopped by DPS, do you get to > ignore his warnings? If you get beligerent with the officer, are > you going to jail? > Matt > > > > > > > > > It's all boils down to MONEY > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 American Medical Response of Houston will be conducting an EMT-Basic certification course beginning February 14. The classes will be Tuesday, Thursday nights from 1830-2200 and alternating Saturdays from 0800-1700. Classroom hours total 167 hours. The hospital rotations will be through the Memorial-Hermann system, and ambulance internship includes MCHD EMS. The cost of the course will be $700.00. This figure includes the cost for EVOC, BTLS-B, and PEPP-B courses which are built-in to the schedule as well as uniform shirt, textbook, workbook and pocket reference book. Interested parties may contact Thom Seeber @ x-3037 or at with any questions concerning the course. Thom Seeber, CCEMT-P American Medical Response O: 7 C: " Premim non nocere " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.