# Mich. court lets gunshot victim sue 911 operator



## MMiz (Jul 9, 2009)

*Mich. court lets gunshot victim sue 911 operator*

LANSING, Mich. - A divided Michigan Supreme Court has allowed a paralyzed gunshot victim to move ahead with her lawsuit against a Detroit 911 operator who asked if she was "a mental patient" when she called for help.

In a 4-3 order released Wednesday, the majority denied the appeal of dispatcher Kimberly Langford in one sentence. That means Lorraine Hayes' lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress can go to trial. 

*Read more!*


----------



## WannaBeFlight (Jul 10, 2009)

WOW!!!!  It does not seem appropriate that the dispatch asked her that, but seriously...  <_<


----------



## SurgeWSE (Jul 11, 2009)

> The operator said she did not believe Hayes would be able to call if she was shot in the head and told her she would get in trouble for making a false report.
> 
> Despite her doubts, the operator sent police to the address.
> 
> The police apparently could not find the location, and EMS arrived only after Hayes called her son in Minnesota and he called Detroit police -- 42 minutes after Hayes' first call.



I'm sure the dispatchers are supposed to screen false calls, but I think a reasonable person operating in her position would have sent police and EMS.  It is entirely possible to be shot in the head and still call 911. We've had two like that in the last couple of months.  One was an misfire which hit a man in the head.  He then called 911 and was talking to the dispatcher when he went unresponsive.  The other was a self inflicted GSW to the head a couple of weeks ago. The person used a small caliber handgun, and the round never fully penetrated her skull.  When the crew arrived, the bullet was still lodged in her head.


----------



## rescuepoppy (Jul 11, 2009)

WannaBeFlight said:


> WOW!!!!  It does not seem appropriate that the dispatch asked her that, but seriously...  <_<



  In my experience in dispatch I have never had occasion to ask this question,I hve thought about it a few times. The patient has already stated their problem by telling you they have been shot. This is all we have to go on until somebody gets on scene. I would have sent law enforcement and a medic unit.


----------



## rescuepoppy (Jul 11, 2009)

Back to finish. You may have a voice in the back of your head that says a call is B.S. just like when you are on a truck.I don't know if I would go as far as a lawsuit here . This is just based off of the article ,but it does seem that some disciplinary action is called for. Many of us who do dispatch try to make ourselves as professional as possible. This sort of action in my opinion takes away from that professionalism.


----------



## WuLabsWuTecH (Jul 11, 2009)

Problem 1 - A dispatcher does not have the ability to make the call of whether or not it is BS.  IF it is, let the PD take care of charging her for false report.  Even when we hear "toe pain" on the PA we still go hot to scene b/c we have no way of knowing if anythig worse is going on.  Its not your job to call BS until you see the patient.

Problem 2 - Even if the dispatcher was negligent, you still have to prove damages and proximate cause.  That is, the lady would have to prove that the delay in care was the most important factor in why she is now paralyzed.  One would guess that most likely the proximate cause would be the GSW to the head in which case the shooter is resposible.  Only if she can prove that the bullet would not have caused paralysis AND that had she arrived at the hospital earlier her outcome would be different is ther eproximate cause of damages.  That's gonna be a tough sell.


----------



## reaper (Jul 11, 2009)

WuLabsWuTecH said:


> Problem 1 - *A dispatcher does not have the ability to make the call of whether or not it is BS.  IF it is, let the PD take care of charging her for false report.  Even when we hear "toe pain" on the PA we still go hot to scene b/c we have no way of knowing if anythig worse is going on.  Its not your job to call BS until you see the patient.*
> Problem 2 - Even if the dispatcher was negligent, you still have to prove damages and proximate cause.  That is, the lady would have to prove that the delay in care was the most important factor in why she is now paralyzed.  One would guess that most likely the proximate cause would be the GSW to the head in which case the shooter is resposible.  Only if she can prove that the bullet would not have caused paralysis AND that had she arrived at the hospital earlier her outcome would be different is ther eproximate cause of damages.  That's gonna be a tough sell.




Have you ever heard of EMD? This is the concept behind it. Is it perfect? NO. Does it work for a majority of the call volume? YES! It was designed specifically for the "Toe Pain" calls. There is no reason to risk lives running hot for no reason. We have tried to get away from the "Whacker System" of running EMS. Any city that still runs hot to all calls is antiquated and needs to come into the present.


----------



## WuLabsWuTecH (Jul 11, 2009)

Well maybe we're on an antiquated system, which is probably true seeing as how dispatches get stacked up.

If the dispatcher is sure that we don't need to go hot, then we'll get dispatched as a "medic service run" but otherwise thye don't want to risk it.  Also, when the metro dispatch dispatches us, because they are so backed up with dispatches that after the dispatch is ready to go sometimes you have to wait for 2 minutes before the dispatch will go out b/c of all the others in front of it, they try to shorten dispatch messages.  "Toe pain" could actually mean laceration on toe that is bleeding profusely or partially severed toe.  Yes we do need a better system, but when you have something like 400 units getting dispatched on one talkgroup, then there are capacity issues.

We get better dispatches from the suburb that only dispatches 10 or so pieces of equipment.  For a highway MVA, Metro gives us "freeway assignment I-70 North at first st", the suburbs give us "MVA, car vs. motorcycle, on I 70 northbound just before main, get on the freeway at second street going northbound to access scene.  PD on scene reports one victim on the ground, 2 still in the car."


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 12, 2009)

WannaBeFlight said:


> WOW!!!!  It does not seem appropriate that the dispatch asked her that, but seriously...  <_<



If I was in that position I would not have SUED the dispatcher, I wouldn't be happy but its nothing to sue over. I guess people are a little to greedy over money these days.


----------



## MendoEMT (Jul 13, 2009)

WuLabsWuTecH said:


> "Toe pain" could actually mean laceration on toe that is bleeding profusely or partially severed toe.



I still would have a problem going code 3/hot to a toe injury.  You aren't going to bleed out from your toe, even though it may hurt, and running code 3 doesn't save that much time anyway.  I'm not going to rush and put myself at risk for a toe!


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 13, 2009)

WuLabsWuTecH said:


> Problem 1 - A dispatcher does not have the ability to make the call of whether or not it is BS.  IF it is, let the PD take care of charging her for false report.  Even when we hear "toe pain" on the PA we still go hot to scene b/c we have no way of knowing if anythig worse is going on.  Its not your job to call BS until you see the patient.




You never know however what could be wrong over the phone, maybe someone was shot in the toe? Maybe they dont feel anything in their toe? They might be in so much shock they cant explain over the phone. Your right thoe, if you have a call for toe pain it probably wont be THAT severe but better safe than sorry maybe? Not sure.


----------



## WuLabsWuTecH (Jul 13, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> You never know however what could be wrong over the phone, maybe someone was shot in the toe? Maybe they dont feel anything in their toe? They might be in so much shock they cant explain over the phone. Your right thoe, if you have a call for toe pain it probably wont be THAT severe but better safe than sorry maybe? Not sure.


That's at least our protocol.  If they called 911, we're not gonna chance it, assume people kinda know what they are doing until proven otherwise.  We rarely transport L&S to hospital.

I believe in ST. Louis on a multi unit dispatch, only the cloest unit goes hot.  If the closest unit gets there they can expedite the other units if necessary.  If its called in my PD, then they can also request expedite for all units responding.


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 14, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> If I was in that position I would not have SUED the dispatcher, I wouldn't be happy but its nothing to sue over. I guess people are a little to greedy over money these days.



Yes, never walking again is no reason to sue. Not sure if she'll win, but she should try.


----------



## redcrossemt (Jul 20, 2009)

The article states that the dispatcher did send police on the run, but they were unable to find the location.

Maybe she should sue the police?

How about her landlord for not putting up better numbering on the house?

As was said before, it appears as though the delay of EMS wasn't the cause of her paralysis. She can try, but I doubt the court will find in favor of the plantiff. Maybe she should sue the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend who shot her?


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 20, 2009)

reaper said:


> Any city that still runs hot to all calls is antiquated and needs to come into the present.



We are having a similarly interesting problem in our county right now.  In short, Fire is trying to keep their call volume up in order to keep the funding in our cash-strapped state of CA.  In doing so, a common misconception amoung local dispatchers is to "Throw everything at the call code 3 becasue it is procedure."  However, no such protocol really exists, it is just that after so long, our dispatchers believe that Fire must respond to every medical call in force.  This is a problem that several people in the county are trying to put a stop to by educating the dispatchers... with little success.  Example:

Last week a man calls 911 and says that he his heald up in his bathroom with his 3 y/o kid.  His wife was ETOH and tossed his kid to the ground.  So he fled to the bathroom and called 911.  His wife was in the house with their other young child.  Sheriff (2 closest deputies) responded Code 3 for about 3 minutes; until the RP stated that his wife had left teh house in a car (drunk).  The deputies, seeing that there was no life threating conditions for the children, reduced code and continued.  According to the RP, his kids were fine (no injury), however, the Sargeant on duty that night told dispatch to send out the ambo just to evaluate the kid... for liability and all that, although no one is saying that even a small push could result in injury to the kid.  Ambo is 20 minutes down the road and starts out code 2 (in my highly mountain twisting roads code 3 almost never results in a faster response).  BLS Fire was never requested by the ambo or the deputies.  What does the dispatcher do?  Follows ther self-proclaimed "protocols" and notifies fire dispatch.  Note:  SO dispatch handles county LE, SAR, and EMS.  All Fire in the county is dispatched out by CALFIRE.  Here's where it gets interesting:

The location of the call is on County Fire terf, therefore the volunteer station 2 minutes away gets toned out.  However, CALFIRE manages the County Volunteer system and responds in addition; ther closest station is 15 minutes away.  However, because the volunteer system is so unreliable now-a-days, the closest District (8-10 minutes away) also maintains a Mutual Aid system with the County.  So what is the response to the call?  1 volunteer engine (2 FFs), 2 District Engines (4 FFs), and the state Engine (4 FFs).  All MFR or EMT.  All going code 3.  Ambo, hearing the Fire code 3 response, and thinking they were missing something also upgraded to code 3.  Meanwhile, the deputies are still code 2 with a longer response time.  Result?

Volunteer engine gets on scene to "evaluate" the pt.  The kid is fine (per medics who AMAed the pt. while mom went to jail).  But instead of reducing or cancelling the response, all 4 engines head in code 3 and strip.  Misappropriatation of resources?  Overkill?  In fire season, non-theless, they strip 4 engines and 10 FF's from a normal response readiness.  Not to mention, do we want 4 engines and an ambo going code on the streets when 1 ambo (no l/s) is good enough?

This is nothing new in my county.  Ever medical call, no matter how benign (stubbed toes and granny not feeling well for 2 days) gets at least 2 engines code 3, in addition to the ambo.  In at least one section of teh count, the normal response is 2 engines, a utility, and a chief... to every medical call!  Hence, there are more than a few ruffled features around here...


----------



## subliminal1284 (Jul 20, 2009)

Good the dispatcher deserves it, you dont question something like that. It is not unheard of for people to survive gunshot wounds to the head.


----------

