Wow, just wow.

What is wrong with the guy? Maybe a lot or maybe only being too willing to trust that the police are honest. Perhaps a overzealous detective mistook a full body trauma exam with "breast and genital touching". You never know.
 
firefite said:
Is that going to be part of the new trauma assessment for the 2012 year?

Kidding obviously.
Click to expand...


As the saying goes, a finger or tube in every hole.
 
Linuss said:
True or not, Any decent defense lawyer will rip her story to shreds with "how can she prove ANYTHING when she had a loss of consciousness and a concussion?". Granted we don't know the full details, but unless there's actual physical evidence, I don't see her "winning".

Chances are, this is a false allegation, like most often are. I hope it turns out to not be true, but it wouldn't be the first time it would be true.
Click to expand...
Guilty until proven innocent. the media will always convict someone to sell papers, even if the story isn't true. Even if he's found not guilty, his career is likely over.

and how much do you want to bet she didn't fall and get a concussion, she passed out from to much alcohol, resulting in her injury and/or or loss of consciousness? after all, this did happen at a holiday party.
JPINFV said:
http://www.emsworld.com/news/10611546/conn-emt-admitted-sexually-assaulting-patientWell... alrighty then. Apparently checking for responsiveness now comes with a free bimanual pelvic and breast exam.
Click to expand...
how does he check for responsiveness? a nipple twister is him checking for painful stimuli?

but why did she wait until after she left the hospital to call the cops? police respond to ERs all the time. if she was being assaulted, how come she didn't scream so the man's partner would stop and do something? or have the hospital immediately contact the medic's boss to file the complaint?

Like I said before, guilty until proven innocent. And if he did commit the crimes he is accused of, I say throw him in jail for the maximum amount of time permitted by law.
 
DrParasite said:
Guilty until proven innocent. the media will always convict someone to sell papers, even if the story isn't true. Even if he's found not guilty, his career is likely over.
and how much do you want to bet she didn't fall and get a concussion, she passed out from to much alcohol, resulting in her injury and/or or loss of consciousness? after all, this did happen at a holiday party.
how does he check for responsiveness? a nipple twister is him checking for painful stimuli?
Click to expand...
"The warrant says Powell at first denied any inappropriate contact but then said he touched the woman's breasts and genitals "to elicit a response from or awake the female." The warrant says he expressed remorse to police."

When the news article reports that the arrest warrant says the guy admitted to it, then I'm going to go ahead and say, "The guy admitted to it."

Ok, let's assume that he was doing a titty twister to check for painful stimuli. In what world would that be considered an appropriate test for painful stimuli? You threw that out there, now justify how a titty twister is a legitimate medical test for painful stimuli in a situation like this. "Sorry miss, your T3 or T4 may be damaged, but instead of testing out the dermatome... well just about any other place on that plane, I've gotta play with your nipple."

but why did she wait until after she left the hospital to call the cops? police respond to ERs all the time. if she was being assaulted, how come she didn't scream so the man's partner would stop and do something? or have the hospital immediately contact the medic's boss to file the complaint?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter provided that it was reported within the statute of limitations?
Like I said before, guilty until proven innocent. And if he did commit the crimes he is accused of, I say throw him in jail for the maximum amount of time permitted by law.
Click to expand...
Does it matter if he admits to doing what he's accused of doing?
 
JPINFV said:
"The warrant says Powell at first denied any inappropriate contact but then said he touched the woman's breasts and genitals "to elicit a response from or awake the female." The warrant says he expressed remorse to police."

When the news article reports that the arrest warrant says the guy admitted to it, then I'm going to go ahead and say, "The guy admitted to it."

Ok, let's assume that he was doing a titty twister to check for painful stimuli. In what world would that be considered an appropriate test for painful stimuli? You threw that out there, now justify how a titty twister is a legitimate medical test for painful stimuli in a situation like this. "Sorry miss, your T3 or T4 may be damaged, but instead of testing out the dermatome... well just about any other place on that plane, I've gotta play with your nipple."

Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter provided that it was reported within the statute of limitations?
Does it matter if he admits to doing what he's accused of doing?
Click to expand...
hold up there skippy: if he actually did admit to doing it (because we know the news is always 100% accurate), and never exaggerates an article to sell papers, than fine, he did the crime, he gets convicted and does the time. I'm actually surprised they even needed a warrant, usually when a person admits to committing a crime to the police they get arrested immediately.

I was trying to be sarcastic when I mentioned the titty twister as being an acceptable way to check for stimuli. I would have thought a med student like yourself would have picked up on it.

assuming he didn't admit doing it, have you ever had a complaint filed against you (for anything, not rape as the article says)? usually they happen from the ER staff or from the patient in the ER. typically not after the patient gets discharged, has consulted a shady attorney for how much she can sue for damages. for criminal acts, it's done immediately when the person is safe, after the crew leaves, so the PD can investigate immediately. These accusations happen all the time (well not all the time thankfully, but they are all too common), and generally baseless.
 
If he didn't admit to it, I imagine he's going to have a pretty good cause for action against who ever either wrote the warrant up, or who ever reported that the warrant said something it didn't say.

Alternatively, if he didn't do it, why admit to it?
 
In an event to protect oneself, could an EMT/Paramedic wear a hidden cam or audio devise? Or better yet one inside the vehicle? Than it wouldn't be hear say.

That's disturbing that upon an allegation someone's career can be ruined. If the person did it, he should be made an example of. It seems all the allegations would be done away with if they had some type of cam with audio devise. Than there's no speculations.
 
The probably with auditory recording is that there is a valid expectation of privacy in the back of an ambulance, thus making it fall victim to "wire tapping" laws in two party consent states.
 
JPINFV said:
The probably with auditory recording is that there is a valid expectation of privacy in the back of an ambulance, thus making it fall victim to "wire tapping" laws in two party consent states.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the whole data protection and record retention thing in HIPAA.
 
ffemt8978 said:
Not to mention the whole data protection and record retention thing in HIPAA.
Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned with that. Lock the cabinet and you're done. Make it so the videos tape over every couple of days and you're good to go. Changing 2 party consent laws takes an act of legislature to get around.
 
Mlee81 said:
In an event to protect oneself, could an EMT/Paramedic wear a hidden cam or audio devise? Or better yet one inside the vehicle? Than it wouldn't be hear say.

That's disturbing that upon an allegation someone's career can be ruined. If the person did it, he should be made an example of. It seems all the allegations would be done away with if they had some type of cam with audio devise. Than there's no speculations.
Click to expand...

JPINFV said:
I'm not too concerned with that. Lock the cabinet and you're done. Make it so the videos tape over every couple of days and you're good to go. Changing 2 party consent laws takes an act of legislature to get around.
Click to expand...

For the one in the vehicle, it would probably require agency oversight to install it so that would be a possibility. Given the highlighted portion above, it seems more likely the agency would not know about it. That was the part I was directing my comment towards. But as a resident of a two party consent state, I understand your point too.
 
Yea.. I realized that you were directing it to the "Well, let's just strap a video camera on my on accord" concept after I posted it.

Besides, to the best of my knowledge HIPAA is civil, whereas wiretap laws are criminal. I'd rather give up my money before I give up my freedom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HIPAA has criminal penalties too.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...ability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page

Criminal Penalties
In June 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) clarified who can be held criminally liable under HIPAA. Covered entities and specified individuals, as explained below, whom "knowingly" obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information in violation of the Administrative Simplification Regulations face a fine of up to $50,000, as well as imprisonment up to one year. Offenses committed under false pretenses allow penalties to be increased to a $100,000 fine, with up to five years in prison. Finally, offenses committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm permit fines of $250,000, and imprisonment for up to ten years.
Click to expand...
 
Ahh, good to know, however I don't think that any of those would necessarily apply in this case, provided the covered entity didn't just start waving around the information.
 
ffemt8978 said:
For the one in the vehicle, it would probably require agency oversight to install it so that would be a possibility. Given the highlighted portion above, it seems more likely the agency would not know about it. That was the part I was directing my comment towards. But as a resident of a two party consent state, I understand your point too.
Click to expand...

Concerning the bold, it seems that could be a good way to protect both protect the provider as long as the recording material was protected.

I can understand why a personal device wouldn't be allowed. Thought I'd ask anyways.
 
It may hit the point of needing to have 2 people in the back at all times. I have asked to have a 2nd person in the back for certain patients; 15 y/o female with mental issues for one. Overdose, we did a 12 lead, 2 IV's didn't want any possibility of her saying that I 'Touched' her while putting the electrodes on.

We had a nurse get accused of sexual assault at the ED while putting the electrodes on a 60+ y/o female. by the daughter, because the 'female nurse touched my mothers breasts'. She took it all the way to court. It was thrown out, but didn't help the nurse out very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top