# Liability for EMT-B Without Medical Direction



## Mike AZ (Jan 12, 2014)

My wife and I both recently completed an EMT Basic course at our local college and are volunteers (retired) with our regional Search and Rescue group in central AZ.  Our local Medical Director has declined to provide Medical Direction and ALS for our Search and Rescue group, so it seems we would have a lot of legal liability if we acted as EMTs on our own. So, we are not going for the National Registration (required in AZ to get certified).

Our thinking is that although we have the knowledge and skills of EMT-B, we should act only as regular first aid providers on our rescue missions so that we qualify under the Good Samaritan Act as just plain ol' citizens trying to help.  Is our thinking about avoiding the legal MD expectations of licensed EMTs sound?


----------



## Mariemt (Jan 12, 2014)

Mike AZ said:


> My wife and I both recently completed an EMT Basic course at our local college and are volunteers (retired) with our regional Search and Rescue group in central AZ.  Our local Medical Director has declined to provide Medical Direction and ALS for our Search and Rescue group, so it seems we would have a lot of legal liability if we acted as EMTs on our own. So, we are not going for the National Registration (required in AZ to get certified).
> 
> Our thinking is that although we have the knowledge and skills of EMT-B, we should act only as regular first aid providers on our rescue missions so that we qualify under the Good Samaritan Act as just plain ol' citizens trying to help.  Is our thinking about avoiding the legal MD expectations of licensed EMTs sound?


First, you don't have proof you have the knowledge and skills.
Second, even an EMT can render basic first aid,just like anyone else who can apply a band aid,  just not really anything above that without medical direction.

As for legalities, call a lawyer.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jan 12, 2014)

Reality is, there is really a VERY small difference between a first aid trained person and an EMT depending on where you are. Other then HOPEFULLY being conditioned to react in a correct manner faster 

What exactly would you be doing that you think you need medical control? You can still splint, provide ice packs, assist patient with there own Tylenol Motrin epipen or whatever, can still apply a bandage etc etc.  really the only difference is essentially a lack of the use of O2.  You don't need special tools or Ricky rescue gear other then carrying a pair of shears. Make splints from surrounding items such as tree limbs, bandages by cutting part of the shirt off the patient and use the side that was against the patient to apply pressure to a wound etc etc, true search and rescue outside of the urban setting is truly about improvisation. If the medical director doesn't want to sign on with the idea of EMTS in search and rescue, you respond as a civilian volunteer without any of  the restrictions.


----------



## Mike AZ (Jan 12, 2014)

As I recall from our training, a licensed EMT would be expected to respond appropriately with his skills, as would a fully trained EMT in a similar situation, within the Scope of Practice, or else risk charges of negligence and/or abandonment.  I would think a licensed EMT only applying a bandage (vs. using all of the expected skills) could fall into one of these categories.

I don't understand what you meant as our having no proof that we have the knowledge and skills.  Is the national test the only proof (not the accredited college course)?


----------



## NPO (Jan 12, 2014)

Check you local and state laws. In CA you can be an emt as a volunteer and do all of your bls stuff short of anything that needs medical direction, O2, glucose, etc. This is covered under our good Sam law. 

Also, you dont have to use THE medical director. Any MD willing to write the orders should be fine and his title would be the Provider Agency Medical Director. I've even seen online places to "rent" a medical director.


----------



## Mariemt (Jan 12, 2014)

Mike AZ said:


> As I recall from our training, a licensed EMT would be expected to respond appropriately with his skills, as would a fully trained EMT in a similar situation, within the Scope of Practice, or else risk charges of negligence and/or abandonment.  I would think a licensed EMT only applying a bandage (vs. using all of the expected skills) could fall into one of these categories.
> 
> I don't understand what you meant as our having no proof that we have the knowledge and skills.  Is the national test the only proof (not the accredited college course)?



Yes, just because you take a class doesn't show "proof" of your qualifications.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Jan 12, 2014)

I know plenty of people who took an EMT course so they'd have some extra first aid skills. 

Now, the difference between extra first aid skills around home and "volunteering as a medical provider without certification and a medical director" is a whole 'nother thing. 

If you really want to continue down that road, seek some REAL legal advice, not the opinions of a bunch of anonymous message board users.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jan 12, 2014)

Yes absolutely what he said, especially if that is why you are in the s&r team.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 13, 2014)

Mike AZ said:


> My wife and I both recently completed an EMT Basic course at our local college and are volunteers (retired) with our regional Search and Rescue group in central AZ.  Our local Medical Director has declined to provide Medical Direction and ALS for our Search and Rescue group, so it seems we would have a lot of legal liability if we acted as EMTs on our own. So, we are not going for the National Registration (required in AZ to get certified).
> 
> Our thinking is that although we have the knowledge and skills of EMT-B, we should act only as regular first aid providers on our rescue missions so that we qualify under the Good Samaritan Act as just plain ol' citizens trying to help.  Is our thinking about avoiding the legal MD expectations of licensed EMTs sound?



YES. Right on. Otherwise EMT's could hang out a shingle and practice from their homes.

Also, if the medical controller has dropped out, there may be a valid reason like volunteers are being accepted without training or despite behavior trouble, too-small budget, etc. (Or politics, such as fire department versus law enforcement, or National versus State versus Local authorities wanting control).Heads up.


----------



## johnrsemt (Jan 17, 2014)

What new first aid skills did you learn in EMT-B school that you didn't already know from the Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts depending)?    I didn't learn anything new, except actually using a backboard:   knew the theory and how to of not letting people move due to possible spinal injuries until EMS arrived, just didn't have LBB and c-collars to use in the Scouts.


----------



## gotbeerz001 (Jan 20, 2014)

As long as you are volunteers, you are simply people with a certain degree of (potentially helpful) knowledge. I would say all of your EMT training is fair game to use since the limiting factor is usually equipment available.


----------



## Jmo371 (Feb 3, 2014)

johnrsemt said:


> What new first aid skills did you learn in EMT-B school that you didn't already know from the Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts depending)?    I didn't learn anything new, except actually using a backboard:   knew the theory and how to of not letting people move due to possible spinal injuries until EMS arrived, just didn't have LBB and c-collars to use in the Scouts.



My NYS course gave me alot of new information but it did not change much i could do before.  I was already certified in First-aid, Wilderness FA, Administering emergency o2, CPR-pro/AED.  So it gave me some new tricks and tips and alot of information....but not much in the actual way of skills.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 3, 2014)

DEmedic said:


> I know plenty of people who took an EMT course so they'd have some extra first aid skills.
> 
> Now, the difference between extra first aid skills around home and "volunteering as a medical provider without certification and a medical director" is a whole 'nother thing.
> 
> If you really want to continue down that road, seek some REAL legal advice, not the opinions of a bunch of anonymous message board users.



Yep. Xackly.
I can see it now. "Y'r Honor, sir, I did it because Mr. RaptorCodeThree007 said I could on EMTLIFE".


----------



## planetsteveo (Feb 4, 2014)

I did SAR for 6 years without medical direction. Your state laws may vary, but based off my experience I would get licensed. Then if a tort claim does come up (because this society is law suit happy), you would be backed by your license at least by having a defined scope of practice. Otherwords...it would show you were trained properly to perform certain functions, tested, and passed a standard. 

I know during the time after my license lapsed, I did certain things as a good Samaritan that could have put me at risk of a tort..but my gut told me it was the right thing to do. Luckily I didn't run into sue-happy crowds. 

I know it seems like hoops to jump through just to be a volunteer. But the piece of mind to me would be worth it.


----------



## ChrisV (Mar 3, 2014)

After spending the time and money to go through the course I would advise to take the test.  Basically all you are providing is first aid and anybody can do that, as long as your not negligent you will be covered under good Samaritan laws.  If you want protocols and medical direction and the physician you mentioned won't do it then find another.  Just seems like a great deal of time and work to just bypass the test.


----------



## 661 EMT (Mar 3, 2014)

I would advise getting your NR and worry about everything else later.... the last thing you wanna do is have to take the whole course over when you decide you want your EMT later..


----------



## BoonDoc (Mar 3, 2014)

I heard that in Ireland they have EMT practitioner licenses. They can respond anywhere in Ireland without medical direction. I don't know if they can use the cardiac drugs without it but they do have practitioner rights. 

In the UK paramedics are practitioners. Sure they have medical doctors in the NHS but they can respond and treat off duty without checking in.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 3, 2014)

The concept of EMT here was to get cheap, non-professional emergency responders quickly spread throughout the land in the early 1970's.

A technician (the "T") does not have the depth of technical, scientific and ethical training a medical professional does. 

I don't know what Ireland calls their practitioners, but here a tech is a tech even if they renamed themselves "Paramedics" (originally it was "EMT-Paramedic"). The majority of the time things will go well because the need is minor, but God help you if your case falls into that small sector where a protocol won't work, or failing to follow a protocol will harm.


----------

