# Florida Crash Photos Could Cost Chief Job



## VentMedic (Jan 7, 2008)

*What is a patient's expectation of privacy at scene?  Do you give respect to a patient's privacy when assessing in public view or even in their home?   Should the patient be photographed or videotaped at scene by EMS/FD?  I've seen many action shots published in various magazines and used at trade conferences for photo contests.  I've often wondered how many of the patients realized they were being filmed or photographed and that they would be viewed by thousands. If a photograph is taken "in plain public view", is it a privacy issue? *

*Florida Crash Photos Could Cost Chief Job*

http://www.local6.com/news/14986331/detail.html

http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=6816

Story by local6.com

UMATILLA, Fla. -- 

A suspended Central Florida fire chief could lose his job over e-mailed photos from a crash scene that included at least one image of a female victim's exposed breasts. 



> Shirk snapped photos of the woman and then e-mailed them to surrounding fire departments, Local 6's Charnel Wright reported.
> 
> Umatilla City Manager Glenn Irby said the woman, who later died, had her privacy rights violated.
> 
> "In passing that information along to others that had nothing to do with the emergency rescue, that becomes to me a moral issue," Irby said. "Distasteful, if you will."


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 7, 2008)

Interesting topic, and there is a fine line here between the patient's right to privacy, the public's right to know newsworthy information, and a valid training topic.

Taking photo's of the victim probably crossed the line, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure.  I do understand the taking of photos for training or QA purposes, but don't see a need to have the victim photographed.

I get the feeling that something else is going on here though, based upon another comment by the city manager



> Irby also said that Shirk was told his services were not needed when he arrived on the scene and he should have left.



Where does a city manager have the authority to say that a fire chief was not needed at the scene of an accident, and should have left?  Not to diminish the seriousness of what happened, but we're not being told the whole story.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 7, 2008)

A person in public have no right to expect privacy. I don't see any of the photographers going to jail because they were taking picture of Britney Spears being loaded into the ambulance in 4 point restraints (you can see a soft restraint on her leg in one of the pictures). 

There are are three problems with this that I see. First, you only need so many pictures for "educational" use. They don't need to be necessarily the last accident to happen. So, unless there was something completely special about this specific accident then there was no reason to take the pictures.

Second, he emailed them out. Emailed pictures have a way of making it online. A perfect example would be an accident that happened in Southern California a few years ago (link goes to Snopes article and link goes to local newspaper article on the eventual fallout of the incident). The accident itself was rather nasty (18 year old + daddy's Porsh (without his permission and which she had never driven before) + 100+MPH + toll booth = funeral) and someone from the high way patrol (which, rather understandably TOOK pictures as part of the investigation) leaked the pictures illegally. It might be understandable if he wasn't a member of an emergency response agency, since this was in public, but he is. Now that he has released those pictures to other agencies, his ability to control said pictures is essentially nil.

Third, while we are involved in the medical field and should be able to stifle that giggle over seeing a a nipple, society might not. For the sake of the patient's dignity, he should have at least tried to blur the nipple.


----------



## r6yr (Jan 7, 2008)

i think this is just another example of how crazy some things in society and how little things make sense anymore.  people (celebrities mostly) cant go on a vacation or go in public without being tracked, followed and photographed on every step.  not only is this legal but it is encouraged.  now why is it that a person cant go on a nice vacation with their wife and young children without being practically stalked but a person who was in a car accident can not be photographed by a worker whos profession relates directly to the accident? especially if it is for training or educational purposes.  and since the man being accused said that the photos were for that reason do we not have to believe him unless something implies otherwise?  now who would be more offended of being photographed while unaware? the celebrity on a vacation with his/her family or the dead woman in a car wreck?  i dont want to sound like sick or anything but there are alot of things that dont make sense these days.


----------



## VentMedic (Jan 7, 2008)

She was alive when the photos were taken.   I think there should be some consideration for the family before making their dead, or soon to be deceased, loved one's photos available on the internet or hanging in some conference center? 

Remember this recent news story?

http://www.emsdailynews.com/?p=395

*Paramedic gets punched out then fired after posting photos of fatal crash online*August 24th, 2007 


> Paramedic took cell phone pictures of crash that killed teenager, posted one online and drew the wrath of teen’s family and his employer
> 
> A Kentucky paramedic has been fired after he posted photographs of a car crash online which led to a violent confrontation with the victim�s family.
> 
> John Snow worked as a paramedic with the Clinton-Hickman County ambulance service for 10 years. He was under investigation by the Kentucky Board of Emergency Management Service for some online postings but continued to work because the service couldn�t afford to suspend him with pay. On May 20, 2007, Snow attended a car accident where a 16-year-old boy was killed. While at the scene, Snow took photos of the crash with his cell phone. He later posted a photo on the website MySpace.com along with a blog about his paramedic work.



*And, for interesting reading on news articles that don't make the regular EMS news wire:*http://www.emsdailynews.com/


----------



## Tincanfireman (Jan 7, 2008)

I agree that there's probably more here than is being published, but my personal feelings are that the photos should not have been disseminated.  In addition, there are many ways to digitally conceal exposed body parts (digitizing) without rendering them unusable.  If the line comes down to protecting a person's privacy or releasing a photo, I think that good taste and privacy should always get the nod.  The only exception should be if there are extraordinary circumstances, and a MVC with injuries can hardly be considered out of the ordinary, even in Umatilla, Florida. In addition, the chief's statement that he didn't realize the victim's breasts were exposed just doesn't wash with me, either. How could these photos have been deemed so educational if he hadn't studied them before he sent them?  Whether or not he should lose his job is another matter, but that's between him and the city leaders to decide.


----------



## spidermedic (Jan 7, 2008)

VentMedic said:


> *What is a patient's expectation of privacy at scene?  Do you give respect to a patient's privacy when assessing in public view or even in their home?   Should the patient be photographed or videotaped at scene by EMS/FD? *



I would have to say that that photographing a victim constitutes, if not an outright HIPPA violation, then at least a breach of public trust. 

Even if the pics were for "training" then sending them out to others was most definitely a HIPPA violation and the person or persons should expect a nice little fine. And HIPPA fines, that can go as high as $25,000, are assessed against the individual not the department.

Personally, I feel that someone who take pictures at a scene is probably doing so more to collect a "there I was" trophy than to augment any training. After all, there are more than enough car/train/plane crash and trauma pics available on the web to cover anyone's training needs. 

Why does this differ from the Brittany case cited? Simple, those were taken by photographers, not EMS professionals.


----------



## bonedog (Jan 7, 2008)

Good to see the papparazzi is to be fired.



Absolutely no reason for this type of behaviour. Pics to be shown to the attending in ER perhaps, although, most likely your time is better used actually doing your job....


----------



## Tincanfireman (Jan 7, 2008)

*Fire Chief resigns over nude photo controversy*

Chief Richard Shirk has resigned his position, according to a local television station. (Source)


----------



## Ridryder911 (Jan 7, 2008)

spidermedic said:


> I would have to say that that photographing a victim constitutes, if not an outright HIPPA violation, then at least a breach of public trust.
> 
> Even if the pics were for "training" then sending them out to others was most definitely a HIPPA violation and the person or persons should expect a nice little fine. And HIPPA fines, that can go as high as $25,000, are assessed against the individual not the department.
> 
> ...




Again, a little confusion in regards to *HIPAA* (not *HIPPA*) only those that produce identification of treatment and information to a patient. As well, many are not aware; those that * do NOT* use electronic billing are not affected by HIPAA rules. 

Ironically, not to long ago it was encouraged that scene photos be taken for scene setting and damage to vehicle (etc.). In fact Polaroid has a special photography kit for EMS, to place photos in the chart. This was instrumental for revealing surgeons, ER docs, that premature removed C-collars or immobilization devices.. and gave them an understanding of mechanism of injury (MOI). 

Pictures are routinely taken by the press, routinely taken by ED/Trauma staff of wounds, care, progression of care, etc.. It is the *intent* of the pictures and what, how they are presented. Yes, usually they attempt to obtain permission, but many use the outlet of  intent of "research" institution at Trauma Centers and Teaching Hospitals. (It is assumed, if one goes to a teaching hospital, one may be used for teaching purposes).

I am totally against scene photos unless they are going to be placed into the patients chart (as described). We have scratched the lenses on all of company cell phone cameras to prevent possibility of use. 

It has reached out of proportion and we need to remember patients privacy with or without any Federal regualtions.. 

R/r 911


----------



## spidermedic (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks for the correction re HIPPA/HIPAA -- I always do that for some reason 

You're also right about covered entities. Of course I am assuming that they bill Medicare and therefore transmit info electronically. In NH, all services are required to have a business assoc. agreement with their medical resource hospital. As such, everyone here is affected by HIPAA and I assumes (yes,  I know) that other states would be in similar situations.

Assuming this department is a covered entity, then, according to everything I've read, releasing a photograph that identifies the victim could be considered an unauthorized release. I guess he could argue that since the victim was dead she wasn't a patient, but either way it's certainly walking a very fine line and would make for an interesting test case.


----------



## VentMedic (Jan 8, 2008)

spidermedic said:


> I guess he could argue that since the victim was dead she wasn't a patient, but either way it's certainly walking a very fine line and would make for an interesting test case.



Apparently she was still alive when the photos were taken and died sometime later.  He could say he was not her care giver at the time the photos were taken.


----------



## BossyCow (Jan 8, 2008)

The difference between Brittany Spears & the general public has been clarified legally. The ACLU often refers to "the expectation of privacy. Those who support themselves by being in the public eye,& whose career success,relies on remaining a 'public figure' doesn't have the same expectation of privacy as the victim of an MVA.

There was no defensible reason for these photo's to have been sent out.


----------



## Asclepius (Jan 8, 2008)

He quit yesterday.


----------



## karaya (May 3, 2008)

Here is an in depth investigation I conducted on the incident that was published in JEMS.com last month.

*Anatomy of Florida Photo Controversy*

Ray


----------

