# Appeals court: Ambulance company not responsible for employee's acts



## MMiz (Sep 20, 2009)

*Appeals court: Ambulance company not responsible for employee's acts*

The Michigan Court of Appeals has dismissed many of the claims in a lawsuit against an ambulance company whose emergency medical technician was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old patient restrained in a straight jacket.

The court on Friday overruled a Wayne County Circuit Court judge in finding Superior Ambulance Services had no responsibility for the criminal acts of Matt DeFillippo, 38, who is in prison for his 2006 conviction for molesting the girl.

*Appeals court: Ambulance company not responsible for employee's acts*


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 20, 2009)

In a certain sense I agree with the ruling. Is there anyway that the company could have prevented the act under the industry standards? While having a three man crew or a female provider for a female patient would be an awesome way to prevent something like this from happening, I just don't see it as practical.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life (Sep 20, 2009)

ruling seems fair to me


----------



## Sapphyre (Sep 20, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> In a certain sense I agree with the ruling. Is there anyway that the company could have prevented the act under the industry standards? While having a three man crew or a female provider for a female patient would be an awesome way to prevent something like this from happening, I just don't see it as practical.



Interestingly enough, my company DOES require female providers for such pts.  (sucks for me, I'm often the only female on, means, I end up going alllllllllllll over my coverage for such calls).

Anyway, I do agree though, there's really no practical way for the company to prevent this, unless the provider has already been convicted of such acts (or has become aware of past acts and failed to fire the provider)


----------



## VentMedic (Sep 20, 2009)

A company should have a policy in place to safeguard against this. It protects teh EMT(P)s from false accusations.

If there was not a female available, especially when I started there were only a few females working the ambulances, the males EMT(P)s would have to make radio contact every few minutes with their location and mileage.

If the ambulance service can not show they have a P&P in place to protect both the patient and the EMT(P), this appeal can still be overturned in the Supreme Court. If no policies exist, the EMT(P)s should also take action against this ambulance company since these calls do represent a fair number in some areas. The EMT(P)s, male and female, should also be aware of certain situations that do put them in a position to be used and/or accused. Maintain contact with your partner. Have your partner adjust the front mirror if possible. Work out a distress signal or word that requires intervention but in a way that does not cause alarm. On a few occasions I have quietly signaled for police intervention at scene or prior to ED arrival.

Again, this is a good case and scenario to review your own company's policies to see how they will protect you or to see what steps your company has to weed out the sickos that occasionally wear an EMT(P) patch.


----------



## Sasha (Sep 20, 2009)

The link didn't work for me.. However.



JPINFV said:


> In a certain sense I agree with the ruling. Is there anyway that the company could have prevented the act under the industry standards? While having a three man crew or a *female provider for a female patient would be an awesome way to prevent something like this from happening, *I just don't see it as practical.



How? Are females incapable of sexually assaulting another female?


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 20, 2009)

It is generally considered less likely. Besides, if anyone has followed the school sex scandles, the female teachers always get off easy, if they're charged at all.


----------



## medic417 (Sep 20, 2009)

Why not start videoing all patient contact?  It also could be beneficial as video could be viewed by doctor to decide on proper care.


----------



## Sasha (Sep 20, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> It is generally considered less likely. Besides, if anyone has followed the school sex scandles, the female teachers always get off easy, if they're charged at all.



So because a female will get off easy it makes it ok?? What about the mental suffering the patient will go through from being sexually assaulted?


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 20, 2009)

So we're now supposed to do third rider on all ambulances because that's the only other option short of throwing in video cameras.


----------



## medic417 (Sep 20, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Why not start videoing all patient contact?  It also could be beneficial as video could be viewed by doctor to decide on proper care.





JPINFV said:


> So we're now supposed to do third rider on all ambulances because that's the only other option short of throwing in video cameras.



So video may be the cheaper way.  Plus could really improve QA/QI.


----------



## rescue99 (Sep 20, 2009)

MMiz said:


> *Appeals court: Ambulance company not responsible for employee's acts*
> 
> The Michigan Court of Appeals has dismissed many of the claims in a lawsuit against an ambulance company whose emergency medical technician was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old patient restrained in a straight jacket.
> 
> ...



Not all employers are aware of their employees activities. Until someone sees or complains, all they have is a criminal background check to go by. This guy's been around a long time in the area and it probably isn't his first assault. Gender like attending EMT's will not stop a criminal freak from molesting.


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 20, 2009)

...and now deal with the headache of people crying about privacy issues as well as chain of custody to insure that the real privacy concerns are addressed.


----------



## Aerin-Sol (Sep 20, 2009)

Sasha said:


> How? Are females incapable of sexually assaulting another female?



Exactly. Queer women don't exist!


----------



## Akulahawk (Sep 20, 2009)

Practically speaking, video would be the cheaper way to do it, however, there' other problems associated with video... do we turn the video on for all contacts, only certain ones, do we use it with a weight switch, how long are we required to retain the video...

The problem with sexual assault is that it's often reported late, is a "he said/she said" situation, and can happen with male/male, male/female, and female/female patient/crewmember interactions. Aside from running video on these calls, your next best bet is to have either a 3rd person ride or have the driver periodically scan the back of the ambulance via rear-view mirror and radio back to dispatch status and mileage.


----------



## medic417 (Sep 20, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> ...and now deal with the headache of people crying about privacy issues as well as chain of custody to insure that the real privacy concerns are addressed.



Have video locked and only medical control and people he has approved for QA/QI able to view.  

If the Paramedic is doing their job right and can justify what they expose, touch etc no problem.  While I am not video taped I do write down all areas exposed, touched etc and approx time and explain why especially if touching the no-nos or the who-ha.  So even if videoed they would not even have to ask why I did something.  Personally I feel video with sound would protect Paramedics from false accusations.


----------



## rescue99 (Sep 20, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Have video locked and only medical control and people he has approved for QA/QI able to view.
> 
> If the Paramedic is doing their job right and can justify what they expose, touch etc no problem.  While I am not video taped I do write down all areas exposed, touched etc and approx time and explain why especially if touching the no-nos or the who-ha.  So even if videoed they would not even have to ask why I did something.  Personally I feel video with sound would protect Paramedics from false accusations.



Problem with this is employers are using the videos to spy on employees. It is being tried and under legal fire at one Metro Detroit area company already. Unfortuantely, employers are using the tool to do bad things.


----------

