Question for Gene et al the JD's Re: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper)

[Guest guest]

I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for litigation

are rich in such a situation.

Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier for

negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself, applies, because

aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something wrong), but for

those who made the decision to use air.

The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the patient on the

aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts are there, there

is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients, unless

there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to ground

ambulance,

et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they had

provided the requisite standard of care.

People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing aircraft

utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel. Putting someone who

is

already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

Gene G.

> Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter and was 

> killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was not right "  

> approach as a point in court?

>

> Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

>   (Office)

> (Office Fax)

> (Cell Phone)

>

> " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds  discuss events; Small minds

> discuss people. "

> Eleanor Roosevelt

>

> 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.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for litigation

are rich in such a situation.

Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier for

negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself, applies, because

aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something wrong), but for

those who made the decision to use air.

The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the patient on the

aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts are there, there

is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients, unless

there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to ground

ambulance,

et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they had

provided the requisite standard of care.

People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing aircraft

utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel. Putting someone who

is

already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

Gene G.

> Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter and was 

> killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was not right "  

> approach as a point in court?

>

> Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

>   (Office)

> (Office Fax)

> (Cell Phone)

>

> " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds  discuss events; Small minds

> discuss people. "

> Eleanor Roosevelt

>

> 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.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for litigation

are rich in such a situation.

Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier for

negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself, applies, because

aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something wrong), but for

those who made the decision to use air.

The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the patient on the

aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts are there, there

is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients, unless

there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to ground

ambulance,

et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they had

provided the requisite standard of care.

People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing aircraft

utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel. Putting someone who

is

already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

Gene G.

> Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter and was 

> killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was not right "  

> approach as a point in court?

>

> Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

>   (Office)

> (Office Fax)

> (Cell Phone)

>

> " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds  discuss events; Small minds

> discuss people. "

> Eleanor Roosevelt

>

> 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.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There is an ongoing suit in Arkansas for just that.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of lnmolino@...

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:07 PM

To:

Subject: Question for Gene et al the JD's Re: RE: Corpus

Christi newspaper)

Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter and was

killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was not right "

approach as a point in court?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

(Cell Phone)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

" Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds

discuss people. "

Eleanor Roosevelt

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.

[Guest guest]

There is an ongoing suit in Arkansas for just that.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of lnmolino@...

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:07 PM

To:

Subject: Question for Gene et al the JD's Re: RE: Corpus

Christi newspaper)

Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter and was

killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was not right "

approach as a point in court?

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@...

(Office)

(Office Fax)

(Cell Phone)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

" Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds

discuss people. "

Eleanor Roosevelt

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.

[Guest guest]

Something from the peanut gallery again....what about the data that

says that everyone in and around an ambulance using lights and

sirens is in danger? I don't believe the man should have been flown

if he was completely stable, which he appeared to be. But does it

say any where in the article that the ambulance did or did not use

lights and sirens? The only times I have used a helecopter is when

the time difference between going by ground or going by air would

have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome. Yes, there is

going to be more of a chance of crashing with a helecopter, but what

about the crashes that we hear about every year that involve an

ambulance running hot? Are we all going to be sued for making a

decision for some sort of transport...or should we just leave them

at the scene because that would bring just as much liability?

>

> I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for

litigation

> are rich in such a situation.

>

> Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier

for

> negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself,

applies, because

> aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something

wrong), but for

> those who made the decision to use air.

>

> The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the

patient on the

> aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts

are there, there

> is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

>

> Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients,

unless

> there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to

ground ambulance,

> et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they

had

> provided the requisite standard of care.

>

> People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing

aircraft

> utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel.

Putting someone who is

> already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

>

> Gene G.

>

>

>

> > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter

and was 

> > killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was

not right "  

> > approach as a point in court?

> >

> > Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > LNMolino@...

> >   (Office)

> > (Office Fax)

> > (Cell Phone)

> >

> > " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds  discuss events; Small

minds

> > discuss people. "

> > Eleanor Roosevelt

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

As long as it isn't a prominent lawyer.... and the vice president of the United

States of America didn't shoot him.......no....... I am certain that is a

rule...... I will have to ask my newspaper friend...... he will know....

Magalee wrote:

Something from the peanut gallery again....what about the data that

says that everyone in and around an ambulance using lights and

sirens is in danger? I don't believe the man should have been flown

if he was completely stable, which he appeared to be. But does it

say any where in the article that the ambulance did or did not use

lights and sirens? The only times I have used a helecopter is when

the time difference between going by ground or going by air would

have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome. Yes, there is

going to be more of a chance of crashing with a helecopter, but what

about the crashes that we hear about every year that involve an

ambulance running hot? Are we all going to be sued for making a

decision for some sort of transport...or should we just leave them

at the scene because that would bring just as much liability?

>

> I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for

litigation

> are rich in such a situation.

>

> Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier

for

> negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself,

applies, because

> aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something

wrong), but for

> those who made the decision to use air.

>

> The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the

patient on the

> aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts

are there, there

> is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

>

> Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients,

unless

> there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to

ground ambulance,

> et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they

had

> provided the requisite standard of care.

>

> People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing

aircraft

> utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel.

Putting someone who is

> already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

>

> Gene G.

>

>

>

> > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter

and was

> > killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was

not right "

> > approach as a point in court?

> >

> > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > LNMolino@...

> > (Office)

> > (Office Fax)

> > (Cell Phone)

> >

> > " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small

minds

> > discuss people. "

> > Eleanor Roosevelt

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

As long as it isn't a prominent lawyer.... and the vice president of the United

States of America didn't shoot him.......no....... I am certain that is a

rule...... I will have to ask my newspaper friend...... he will know....

Magalee wrote:

Something from the peanut gallery again....what about the data that

says that everyone in and around an ambulance using lights and

sirens is in danger? I don't believe the man should have been flown

if he was completely stable, which he appeared to be. But does it

say any where in the article that the ambulance did or did not use

lights and sirens? The only times I have used a helecopter is when

the time difference between going by ground or going by air would

have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome. Yes, there is

going to be more of a chance of crashing with a helecopter, but what

about the crashes that we hear about every year that involve an

ambulance running hot? Are we all going to be sued for making a

decision for some sort of transport...or should we just leave them

at the scene because that would bring just as much liability?

>

> I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for

litigation

> are rich in such a situation.

>

> Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier

for

> negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself,

applies, because

> aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something

wrong), but for

> those who made the decision to use air.

>

> The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the

patient on the

> aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts

are there, there

> is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

>

> Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients,

unless

> there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to

ground ambulance,

> et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they

had

> provided the requisite standard of care.

>

> People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing

aircraft

> utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel.

Putting someone who is

> already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

>

> Gene G.

>

>

>

> > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter

and was

> > killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was

not right "

> > approach as a point in court?

> >

> > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > LNMolino@...

> > (Office)

> > (Office Fax)

> > (Cell Phone)

> >

> > " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small

minds

> > discuss people. "

> > Eleanor Roosevelt

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

As long as it isn't a prominent lawyer.... and the vice president of the United

States of America didn't shoot him.......no....... I am certain that is a

rule...... I will have to ask my newspaper friend...... he will know....

Magalee wrote:

Something from the peanut gallery again....what about the data that

says that everyone in and around an ambulance using lights and

sirens is in danger? I don't believe the man should have been flown

if he was completely stable, which he appeared to be. But does it

say any where in the article that the ambulance did or did not use

lights and sirens? The only times I have used a helecopter is when

the time difference between going by ground or going by air would

have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome. Yes, there is

going to be more of a chance of crashing with a helecopter, but what

about the crashes that we hear about every year that involve an

ambulance running hot? Are we all going to be sued for making a

decision for some sort of transport...or should we just leave them

at the scene because that would bring just as much liability?

>

> I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the opportunities for

litigation

> are rich in such a situation.

>

> Not only does one have the obvious claims against the air carrier

for

> negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing speaks for itself,

applies, because

> aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has done something

wrong), but for

> those who made the decision to use air.

>

> The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks who put the

patient on the

> aircraft is in proving proximate cause. However, if the facts

are there, there

> is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

>

> Lacking any valid evidence that air transport helps most patients,

unless

> there are circumstances such as wilderness area inaccessible to

ground ambulance,

> et cetera, it might be hard for the ground providers to prove they

had

> provided the requisite standard of care.

>

> People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about rotor-wing

aircraft

> utilization. It is not essentially a safe way to travel.

Putting someone who is

> already sick at additional risk without good reason is nonsense.

>

> Gene G.

>

>

>

> > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was TXed by helicopter

and was

> > killed or injured in a crash of same and used the " a chopper was

not right "

> > approach as a point in court?

> >

> > Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > LNMolino@...

> > (Office)

> > (Office Fax)

> > (Cell Phone)

> >

> > " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small

minds

> > discuss people. "

> > Eleanor Roosevelt

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I can't even remember the last time I transported a patient lights and siren.

How would that have helped Poor Harry?

GG

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

[Guest guest]

I can't even remember the last time I transported a patient lights and siren.

How would that have helped Poor Harry?

GG

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

[Guest guest]

I don't know what the RAC protocols say, but they should allow for transport

decisions made on availability of services. So if you have a neuro, and

there's no neuro service available at the hospital indicated by the RAC

protocol,

you shouldn't follow that protocol.

I am not in favor of RAC protocols or state wide protocols. Even though

RACS are closer to the local needs than a state office would be, they are no

substitute for a good set of protocols geared to the specific service's needs.

If there are to be RAC protocols, they should be guidelines only.

Let me propose this to you: Your RAC protocol requires you to transport a

neuro patient to a hospital without neuro service that day, and you know it.

Your patient's condition worsens and he dies because he needed his head

drilled immediately. You're looking at a lawsuit, AND THE MEMBERS OF YOUR RAC

EXECUTIVE BOARD could be looking at a lawsuit also.

These days, because of the limits on damage recoveries and the difficulties

in maintaining malpractice suits, lawyers are taking the chokes off their

shotguns and firing the widest pattern they can find. If they can't win the

BIG

ONES, look for them to try to win more small ones.

Any protocol that does not allow decisions to be made based upon good

clinical judgment may get you into trouble.

Gene G.

> What about those services that have a RAC protocol to

> follow because it was included in their protocol as a

> TDSHS requirement?  Should the RAC protocols be

> redone? Here in the valley there are only two level III

> trauma centers, each one 30 mile apart.  The closer

> one rarely has neurosurgeons on call.

> Salvador Capuchino Jr

> EMT-P

>

> --- Magalee wrote:

>

> >

> > Something from the peanut gallery again....what

> > about the data that

> > says that everyone in and around an ambulance using

> > lights and

> > sirens is in danger?  I don't believe the man should

> > have been flown

> > if he was completely stable, which he appeared to

> > be.  But does it

> > say any where in the article that the ambulance did

> > or did not use

> > lights and sirens?  The only times I have used a

> > helecopter is when

> > the time difference between going by ground or going

> > by air would

> > have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome.

> > Yes, there is

> > going to be more of a chance of crashing with a

> > helecopter, but what

> > about the crashes that we hear about every year that

> > involve an

> > ambulance running hot?  Are we all going to be sued

> > for making a

> > decision for some sort of transport...or should we

> > just leave them

> > at the scene because that would bring just as much

> > liability?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the

> > opportunities for

> > litigation

> > > are rich in such a situation.

> > >

> > > Not only does one have the obvious claims against

> > the air carrier

> > for

> > > negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing

> > speaks for itself,

> > applies, because

> > > aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has

> > done something

> > wrong), but for

> > > those who made the decision to use air.

> > >

> > > The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks

> > who put the

> > patient on the

> > > aircraft is in proving proximate cause.   However,

> > if the facts

> > are there, there

> > > is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

> > >

> > > Lacking any valid evidence that air transport

> > helps most patients,

> > unless

> > > there are circumstances such as wilderness area

> > inaccessible to

> > ground ambulance,

> > > et cetera, it might be hard for the ground

> > providers to prove they

> > had

> > > provided the requisite standard of care.

> > >

> > > People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about

> > rotor-wing

> > aircraft

> > > utilization.   It is not essentially a safe way to

> > travel.  

> > Putting someone who is

> > > already sick at additional risk without good

> > reason is nonsense.  

> > >

> > > Gene G.

> > > In a message dated 2/16/06 23:07:40, lnmolino@...

> > writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was

> > TXed by helicopter

> > and was 

> > > > killed or injured in a crash of same and used

> > the " a chopper was

> > not right "  

> > > > approach as a point in court?

> > > >

> > > > Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> > > > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > > > LNMolino@...

> > > >   (Office)

> > > > (Office Fax)

> > > > (Cell Phone)

> > > >

> > > > " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > > > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds 

> > discuss events; Small

> > minds

> > > > discuss people. "

> > > > Eleanor Roosevelt

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I don't know what the RAC protocols say, but they should allow for transport

decisions made on availability of services. So if you have a neuro, and

there's no neuro service available at the hospital indicated by the RAC

protocol,

you shouldn't follow that protocol.

I am not in favor of RAC protocols or state wide protocols. Even though

RACS are closer to the local needs than a state office would be, they are no

substitute for a good set of protocols geared to the specific service's needs.

If there are to be RAC protocols, they should be guidelines only.

Let me propose this to you: Your RAC protocol requires you to transport a

neuro patient to a hospital without neuro service that day, and you know it.

Your patient's condition worsens and he dies because he needed his head

drilled immediately. You're looking at a lawsuit, AND THE MEMBERS OF YOUR RAC

EXECUTIVE BOARD could be looking at a lawsuit also.

These days, because of the limits on damage recoveries and the difficulties

in maintaining malpractice suits, lawyers are taking the chokes off their

shotguns and firing the widest pattern they can find. If they can't win the

BIG

ONES, look for them to try to win more small ones.

Any protocol that does not allow decisions to be made based upon good

clinical judgment may get you into trouble.

Gene G.

> What about those services that have a RAC protocol to

> follow because it was included in their protocol as a

> TDSHS requirement?  Should the RAC protocols be

> redone? Here in the valley there are only two level III

> trauma centers, each one 30 mile apart.  The closer

> one rarely has neurosurgeons on call.

> Salvador Capuchino Jr

> EMT-P

>

> --- Magalee wrote:

>

> >

> > Something from the peanut gallery again....what

> > about the data that

> > says that everyone in and around an ambulance using

> > lights and

> > sirens is in danger?  I don't believe the man should

> > have been flown

> > if he was completely stable, which he appeared to

> > be.  But does it

> > say any where in the article that the ambulance did

> > or did not use

> > lights and sirens?  The only times I have used a

> > helecopter is when

> > the time difference between going by ground or going

> > by air would

> > have been detremental to the pt's ultimate outcome.

> > Yes, there is

> > going to be more of a chance of crashing with a

> > helecopter, but what

> > about the crashes that we hear about every year that

> > involve an

> > ambulance running hot?  Are we all going to be sued

> > for making a

> > decision for some sort of transport...or should we

> > just leave them

> > at the scene because that would bring just as much

> > liability?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I was not aware of the Arkansas case, but the

> > opportunities for

> > litigation

> > > are rich in such a situation.

> > >

> > > Not only does one have the obvious claims against

> > the air carrier

> > for

> > > negligence (res ipsa loquitur, or, the thing

> > speaks for itself,

> > applies, because

> > > aircraft don't usually crash unless somebody has

> > done something

> > wrong), but for

> > > those who made the decision to use air.

> > >

> > > The main hurdle in prevailing against the folks

> > who put the

> > patient on the

> > > aircraft is in proving proximate cause.   However,

> > if the facts

> > are there, there

> > > is no reason that the plaintiff cannot prevail.

> > >

> > > Lacking any valid evidence that air transport

> > helps most patients,

> > unless

> > > there are circumstances such as wilderness area

> > inaccessible to

> > ground ambulance,

> > > et cetera, it might be hard for the ground

> > providers to prove they

> > had

> > > provided the requisite standard of care.

> > >

> > > People need to rethink the cavalier attitude about

> > rotor-wing

> > aircraft

> > > utilization.   It is not essentially a safe way to

> > travel.  

> > Putting someone who is

> > > already sick at additional risk without good

> > reason is nonsense.  

> > >

> > > Gene G.

> > > In a message dated 2/16/06 23:07:40, lnmolino@...

> > writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > > Has anyone ever brought a suit where a PT was

> > TXed by helicopter

> > and was 

> > > > killed or injured in a crash of same and used

> > the " a chopper was

> > not right "  

> > > > approach as a point in court?

> > > >

> > > > Louis N.  Molino, Sr., CET

> > > > FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> > > > LNMolino@...

> > > >   (Office)

> > > > (Office Fax)

> > > > (Cell Phone)

> > > >

> > > > " A  Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

> > > > " Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds 

> > discuss events; Small

> > minds

> > > > discuss people. "

> > > > Eleanor Roosevelt

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >