# EMT fired after refusing to respond to call with patient who previously attacked her.



## AtlasFlyer (Apr 18, 2017)

http://cbs4indy.com/2017/04/17/former-emt-says-she-was-forced-to-choose-between-job-and-safety/


----------



## GMCmedic (Apr 18, 2017)

Nice attention grabbing title. 

She quit

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## joshrunkle35 (Apr 18, 2017)

Appropriate action: go to call. Stage outside. BSI...the scene is not safe. Call po-po for assist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Apr 18, 2017)

Great job with the misleading headline. She quit. She was not fired.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 19, 2017)

Read the article.... it isn't as simple as many of you are making it out to be.

And she didn't quit, per se.  She refused to go on a non-emergency run involving a patient who had previously assaulted her and gave her a concussion, which the company's policy translates into a voluntary resignation of employment.

and i'd probably quit too before I was forced to be in a confined space with someone who previously gave me a head injury.


----------



## GMCmedic (Apr 19, 2017)

"Kindsey Swim said she quit after getting a call to help a patient she said injured her."

"Swim said dispatchers refused to transfer the call to other crews willing to take it, so she chose to walk away."


Sounds pretty simple. She herself stated she quit, the OP posted a false title to grab attention. Cut and dry.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Apr 19, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> Read the article.... it isn't as simple as many of you are making it out to be.
> 
> And she didn't quit, per se.  She refused to go on a non-emergency run involving a patient who had previously assaulted her and gave her a concussion, which the company's policy translates into a voluntary resignation of employment.
> 
> and i'd probably quit too before I was forced to be in a confined space with someone who previously gave me a head injury.



This:



GMCmedic said:


> "Kindsey Swim said she quit after getting a call to help a patient she said injured her."
> 
> "Swim said dispatchers refused to transfer the call to other crews willing to take it, so she chose to walk away."
> 
> ...


 Refusing to take a call in my area is usually met with a finial written or you are fired. Respond to the call but stage away and ask for LEO or respond to the call and assess what is going on.


----------



## NysEms2117 (Apr 19, 2017)

I still think i'd respond, but the scene would be an unsafe scene for me, I would have a LEO no more then 5 feet away from me at any time on that call, and wouldn't transport without a LEO in the back with me.


----------



## GMCmedic (Apr 19, 2017)

As far as the situation as a whole, Im on the fence with this one. I dont feel the company made a reasonable (or really any) effort to protect her. On the other hand this isnt a patient thats just being a jerk, this patient has mental disabilities and maybe the EMT requires more training for how to handle this demographic.

Really need more information on if this is regular behavior for this patient or just an isolated incident. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 19, 2017)

GMCmedic said:


> I dont feel the company made a reasonable (or really any) effort to protect her.


Bingo!!!!

The first time it happened it was unexpected and unavoidable.  The second time, the company did nothing to protect her, or prevent it from happening again.  "Go on this run and risk another concussion or we accept your voluntary resignation, effective immediately."   I'd quit too, but I wouldn't say it's as simple as saying "she quit, nothing to see here."

BTW, unless I'm misreading this, it was a non-emergency run.  Might be different by you, but it's rare to have LEO with you on a private agency non-emergency assignment, and even rarer for them to transport with you.


----------



## NysEms2117 (Apr 19, 2017)

I don't think your misreading, however if they won't come with me to transport, come with me as joe blo the civilian. And the civilian joe blo who has previously been pushed/shoved/attacked by said patient. By me LEO's will actually talk and listen and make a judgement call, which varies everywhere. However thats my take.


----------



## epipusher (Apr 19, 2017)

She should have exhausted all options before walking away. As stated above, calling for additional assistance being one of them.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Apr 19, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> Bingo!!!!
> 
> The first time it happened it was unexpected and unavoidable.  The second time, the company did nothing to protect her, or prevent it from happening again.  "Go on this run and risk another concussion or we accept your voluntary resignation, effective immediately."   I'd quit too, but I wouldn't say it's as simple as saying "she quit, nothing to see here."
> 
> BTW, unless I'm misreading this, it was a non-emergency run.  Might be different by you, but it's rare to have LEO with you on a private agency non-emergency assignment, and even rarer for them to transport with you.


So then how do we deal with this patient? If she was assaulted by this patient isn't there the possibility that this patient will attempt to assault any other provider? So should the agency send in another crew who might get assaulted? How many times has this patient been transported prior without assaulting anyone? What other ways is this patient going to get to his treatment location? If I'm running an IFT and I need LEO for something I have never had them not respond. If the patient is a danger to others but has to be transported then this patient will be restrained with all the seatbelts and 4 soft limb restraints.


----------



## INBOUNDCODE3 (Apr 20, 2017)

EMS work is not all peaches & cream, you deal with all kinds & you've no right to elect your personal "no patient care" option. If you can't take heat get a job filing papers somewhere safe. I would have fired her with extreme prejudice & petitioned the State to revoke her creds forthwith.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Apr 20, 2017)

INBOUNDCODE3 said:


> I would have fired her with extreme prejudice & petitioned the State to revoke her creds forthwith.



Forthwith? You sir, are a tool.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 20, 2017)

And just so you aren't clear, you aren't a tool because you used the word forthwith; your entire post is, well, makes you out to be a huge tool, who is looking to screw your fellow EMT


----------



## NomadicMedic (Apr 20, 2017)

^^^this.


----------



## Flying (Apr 20, 2017)

epipusher said:


> She should have exhausted all options before walking away. As stated above, calling for additional assistance being one of them.


I would've liked to see the company produce options besides "follow protocol".


----------



## E tank (Apr 20, 2017)

Big difference between an unpredictable, unsafe scene and being alone in the back of an ambulance with a patient that has demonstrably declared himself as dangerous. Probably so much more to this story, but to play along...if as advertised, a second person in the back would seem a prudent no brainer, both for the patient's safety and the crew. When "protocol" replaces common sense, well...


----------



## Underoath87 (May 25, 2017)

Her partner is also her boyfriend.  Why didn't he just ride it in instead? Or help her restrain the patient before transport if he lacks the qualifications?  There are too many holes in this story.


----------



## Dennhop (Jul 25, 2017)

So my question is if according to heartland, that this is not considered an assault or former assault, then what is?  You have an individual who is not functioning at a full mental state who assaults an EMT and injures them.  Im not saying anyone should press charges, but how is that different from someone who's on spice or even just drunk, who does the same thing? 
If you intentionally run someone over in a car, it's murder.  If you accidentally run them over, it's still vehicular manslaughter.  Both are essentially the same thing, just the intent is different, but both are counted as an assault.


----------



## bakertaylor28 (Aug 5, 2017)

Dennhop said:


> So my question is if according to heartland, that this is not considered an assault or former assault, then what is?  You have an individual who is not functioning at a full mental state who assaults an EMT and injures them.  Im not saying anyone should press charges, but how is that different from someone who's on spice or even just drunk, who does the same thing?
> If you intentionally run someone over in a car, it's murder.  If you accidentally run them over, it's still vehicular manslaughter.  Both are essentially the same thing, just the intent is different, but both are counted as an assault.



Speaking as a former law student (before I switched over into EMS for ethical reasons) It is true that the difference is the element of intent- however there is a type of intent that most people don't know about, called "specific intent". Specific intent means that someone "specifically intended to break the law", it infers a condition of "malice". Murder is specific intent. (requires "malice aforethought") whereas manslaughter falls as "recklessness". (i.e. no direct intent but a reasonable and prudent person should know that death is extremely likely to occur as a direct and proximate result of an action, and could take affirmative steps to attempt to mitigate the risk that weren't taken.)  Then we have "General Intent" which applies to most crimes, and falls somewhere between the two. 

While Assault and Battery is normally a General Intent Charge (i.e. A reasonable person is only aware of a "high probability" that their actions are unlawful.) Battery on a LEO or EMT / Paramedic, however, is ALWAYS a "specific intent" case, because of the fact that the charged is always enhanced to a felony. This is why someone whom is not reasonably A & O cannot be charged under the circumstances.


----------



## marian (Aug 18, 2017)

The company she used to work for dodged a bullet. 

She told her dispatcher that she was uncomfortable taking the call and didn't feel safe and asked for another crew to be assigned to it (and it seems as if there were crews that were willing to take the call from what the article implies). 

If she had run that call under the pressure of the threat of losing her job and had subsequently been injured after stating her safety concerns, she coulda gotten a good lawyer and at the very least been a pain in that company's backside for years. Coulda even been a major payout for her had something happened.

I don't get why the company she worked for couldn't see that and refused to prioritize her safety. Sounds like a terrible company to work for.


----------

