Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

December 30, 2005

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a Buck Cross Lock?

Kirk

EMT-B

December 30, 2005

Except that DFD is a 911 provider. Baystar, in this case, isn't.

What's the cite? I'd love to read that one.

Mike

> By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came

> up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated.

>

> E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

> Midlothian, Texas

>

> Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

> http://proemseducators.com/index.html

>

> _____

>

> From: [mailto: ] On

> Behalf Of Mike

> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 2:03 PM

> To:

> Subject: Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

>

> > Yes before i'm blasted the city has a permit clause, but

> > then the duty to act has been etablished with the call Baystar and

> > LPEMS never acted until late.

>

> Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

> to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

> act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

> DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

> case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

> call for any number of reasons.

>

> In this case, however, had it been an EMERGENCY call, LPEMS seems to

> have the DUTY to act. Being a non-emergency call, their city

> ordinance allows them to accept or reject the CONTRACT to act, or to

> allow a licensed provider to accept that contract instead.

>

> Regardless of the Baystar/LPEMS licensing agreement, whether or not

> LPEMS rolled the call to Baystar (as it appears from dispatch

> transcripts and witness statements they did), Baystar had no DUTY to

> act, just a CONTRACTED AGREEMENT to respond.

>

> Mike

>

December 30, 2005

Except that DFD is a 911 provider. Baystar, in this case, isn't.

What's the cite? I'd love to read that one.

Mike

> By the service accepting the call, there is a duty to act. Same issue came

> up with the DFD several years ago and this is what the case law stated.

>

> E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

> Midlothian, Texas

>

> Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

> http://proemseducators.com/index.html

>

> _____

>

> From: [mailto: ] On

> Behalf Of Mike

> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 2:03 PM

> To:

> Subject: Re: Re: Baystar medic arrested at scene in La Porte

>

> > Yes before i'm blasted the city has a permit clause, but

> > then the duty to act has been etablished with the call Baystar and

> > LPEMS never acted until late.

>

> Okay, so call me Rob, but how is there a DUTY to act when responding

> to a private, non-emergency call for service? There is a CONTRACT to

> act, an agreement between the caller and the private EMS service, but

> DUTY involves an absolute requirement to perform an action - in this

> case, to respond. Baystar had no DUTY, as they could have refused the

> call for any number of reasons.

>

> In this case, however, had it been an EMERGENCY call, LPEMS seems to

> have the DUTY to act. Being a non-emergency call, their city

> ordinance allows them to accept or reject the CONTRACT to act, or to

> allow a licensed provider to accept that contract instead.

>

> Regardless of the Baystar/LPEMS licensing agreement, whether or not

> LPEMS rolled the call to Baystar (as it appears from dispatch

> transcripts and witness statements they did), Baystar had no DUTY to

> act, just a CONTRACTED AGREEMENT to respond.

>

> Mike

>

December 30, 2005

The issues here are: TDSHS will probably say that

Baystar should not have responded because they are not

a 911 provider. Transfer services here in the Valley

have been told this. However when upper TDSHS

management were asked they stated that as long as a

legitimate 911 call was received, then it is okay.

The PD should have a civil suit filed for interfering

with a medic's duties. PD should not get involved.

The EMS or FD, whoever controls the inspections,

should have investigated the incident by calling their

dispatch to see if clearance was given. Remember the

incident here in the Valley when a service responded

to another EMS jurisdiction? In that situation the

dispatcher told the responding service to respond

because she had no units available to respond. The FD

captain said he did. Therefore an internal problem

made the Captain look like a idiot because he made a

big stink about not being allowed onto the scene by

SO. This was a crime scene, therefore SO allowed only

the first ambulance on scene. The dispatcher here

gave clearance. They even gave the numbers from a

list that was approved. So guess what, La Porte is

not looking too good. Why a non-law enforcement

person assisted with a take down, who knows. Chief

Nolan's adrenalin was probably as pumped as the

officer. As bad as this sounds, I hope he got a black

eye out of it. As for the medic, he probably should

have made contact with an EMS rep and gone back in

service instead of arguing with EMS or PD. I have

seen many a time where we respond to a call in our

area and another service shows up. All I did was make

sure they were MICU and that they were in control.

One less report to do. Then there's the hard-core

medics that will fight for a patient because they are

so hot headed about their service. I responded to an

MVC once where two of my units were on scene. The

service who's responsible for the area (MICU) told my

medics to get refusals. My medics talked the

patient's into being transported. They started to

package and the medic from the other service said he

would call for back up and proceeded to leave the

scene with a code 1 patient. The MICU abandoned

patients to a BLS. When the back up unit finally

arrived 20 minutes later, they tried getting refusals

from the patient because they did not go with them. I

told him to get off of my units and to go get his

refusals at the hospital.

Anyway the other issue now is that like in Laredo,

alot of patients do not like the EMS provided by FD

because:

1. there's about 10 people in your house.

2. there's no such thing as code 1 response.

Sometimes they request no lights or siren.

3. they do not usually transport to a hospital of

choice or out of the city.

3. sometimes the medics are just plain rude (happens

everywhere, not just FD)

4. As a taxpayer I should be able to call who I want

when I want, if I am not happy with the service

provided with the city. There's alot of this here in

Harlingen. Most citizens I know are not happy with

STEC after 20 years of service.

The permits are ok though to have accountability of

who is responding. In my opinion cities who have this

should have unannounced inspections as well because

alot of providers rig their units to pass the initial

inspection and then lose track of their inventory. I

have seen and heard alot of services that are not in

compliance.

Now I also belive TDSHS should have unannounced Drug

screens and take action immediatley for any positive

tests.

If TDSHS wants to control the mount of services

opening they should have an initial start up fee of

$5,000-$10,000.

Salvador Capuchino Jr.

EMT-Paramedic

--- lnmolino@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:35:48 P.M. Central

> Standard Time,

> hatfield@... writes:

>

> but I am beginning to get the feeling that

> everyone involved will bear some of the

> responsibility for what happened,

> excluding the family and the patient.

>

> And that last line is where the shame comes in, the

> ultimate suffering is on

> the part of the patient who may or may not (as yet

> to be proven in the legal

> sense) ended getting some level of substandard care.

> Hence we are back to

> the fact there can be NO winners here as it's just

> too ugly all around at this

> point.

>

> Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

> (Office)

> (Office Fax)

>

> " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

>

> The comments contained in this E-mail are the

> opinions of the author and the

> author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for

> any person or

> organization that I am in any way whatsoever

> involved or associated with unless I

> specifically state that I am doing so. Further this

> E-mail is intended only for its

> stated recipient and may contain private and or

> confidential materials

> retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed

> in the public domain by the

> original author.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

December 30, 2005

The issues here are: TDSHS will probably say that

Baystar should not have responded because they are not

a 911 provider. Transfer services here in the Valley

have been told this. However when upper TDSHS

management were asked they stated that as long as a

legitimate 911 call was received, then it is okay.

The PD should have a civil suit filed for interfering

with a medic's duties. PD should not get involved.

The EMS or FD, whoever controls the inspections,

should have investigated the incident by calling their

dispatch to see if clearance was given. Remember the

incident here in the Valley when a service responded

to another EMS jurisdiction? In that situation the

dispatcher told the responding service to respond

because she had no units available to respond. The FD

captain said he did. Therefore an internal problem

made the Captain look like a idiot because he made a

big stink about not being allowed onto the scene by

SO. This was a crime scene, therefore SO allowed only

the first ambulance on scene. The dispatcher here

gave clearance. They even gave the numbers from a

list that was approved. So guess what, La Porte is

not looking too good. Why a non-law enforcement

person assisted with a take down, who knows. Chief

Nolan's adrenalin was probably as pumped as the

officer. As bad as this sounds, I hope he got a black

eye out of it. As for the medic, he probably should

have made contact with an EMS rep and gone back in

service instead of arguing with EMS or PD. I have

seen many a time where we respond to a call in our

area and another service shows up. All I did was make

sure they were MICU and that they were in control.

One less report to do. Then there's the hard-core

medics that will fight for a patient because they are

so hot headed about their service. I responded to an

MVC once where two of my units were on scene. The

service who's responsible for the area (MICU) told my

medics to get refusals. My medics talked the

patient's into being transported. They started to

package and the medic from the other service said he

would call for back up and proceeded to leave the

scene with a code 1 patient. The MICU abandoned

patients to a BLS. When the back up unit finally

arrived 20 minutes later, they tried getting refusals

from the patient because they did not go with them. I

told him to get off of my units and to go get his

refusals at the hospital.

Anyway the other issue now is that like in Laredo,

alot of patients do not like the EMS provided by FD

because:

1. there's about 10 people in your house.

2. there's no such thing as code 1 response.

Sometimes they request no lights or siren.

3. they do not usually transport to a hospital of

choice or out of the city.

3. sometimes the medics are just plain rude (happens

everywhere, not just FD)

4. As a taxpayer I should be able to call who I want

when I want, if I am not happy with the service

provided with the city. There's alot of this here in

Harlingen. Most citizens I know are not happy with

STEC after 20 years of service.

The permits are ok though to have accountability of

who is responding. In my opinion cities who have this

should have unannounced inspections as well because

alot of providers rig their units to pass the initial

inspection and then lose track of their inventory. I

have seen and heard alot of services that are not in

compliance.

Now I also belive TDSHS should have unannounced Drug

screens and take action immediatley for any positive

tests.

If TDSHS wants to control the mount of services

opening they should have an initial start up fee of

$5,000-$10,000.

Salvador Capuchino Jr.

EMT-Paramedic

--- lnmolino@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:35:48 P.M. Central

> Standard Time,

> hatfield@... writes:

>

> but I am beginning to get the feeling that

> everyone involved will bear some of the

> responsibility for what happened,

> excluding the family and the patient.

>

> And that last line is where the shame comes in, the

> ultimate suffering is on

> the part of the patient who may or may not (as yet

> to be proven in the legal

> sense) ended getting some level of substandard care.

> Hence we are back to

> the fact there can be NO winners here as it's just

> too ugly all around at this

> point.

>

> Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

> (Office)

> (Office Fax)

>

> " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

>

> The comments contained in this E-mail are the

> opinions of the author and the

> author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for

> any person or

> organization that I am in any way whatsoever

> involved or associated with unless I

> specifically state that I am doing so. Further this

> E-mail is intended only for its

> stated recipient and may contain private and or

> confidential materials

> retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed

> in the public domain by the

> original author.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

December 30, 2005

The issues here are: TDSHS will probably say that

Baystar should not have responded because they are not

a 911 provider. Transfer services here in the Valley

have been told this. However when upper TDSHS

management were asked they stated that as long as a

legitimate 911 call was received, then it is okay.

The PD should have a civil suit filed for interfering

with a medic's duties. PD should not get involved.

The EMS or FD, whoever controls the inspections,

should have investigated the incident by calling their

dispatch to see if clearance was given. Remember the

incident here in the Valley when a service responded

to another EMS jurisdiction? In that situation the

dispatcher told the responding service to respond

because she had no units available to respond. The FD

captain said he did. Therefore an internal problem

made the Captain look like a idiot because he made a

big stink about not being allowed onto the scene by

SO. This was a crime scene, therefore SO allowed only

the first ambulance on scene. The dispatcher here

gave clearance. They even gave the numbers from a

list that was approved. So guess what, La Porte is

not looking too good. Why a non-law enforcement

person assisted with a take down, who knows. Chief

Nolan's adrenalin was probably as pumped as the

officer. As bad as this sounds, I hope he got a black

eye out of it. As for the medic, he probably should

have made contact with an EMS rep and gone back in

service instead of arguing with EMS or PD. I have

seen many a time where we respond to a call in our

area and another service shows up. All I did was make

sure they were MICU and that they were in control.

One less report to do. Then there's the hard-core

medics that will fight for a patient because they are

so hot headed about their service. I responded to an

MVC once where two of my units were on scene. The

service who's responsible for the area (MICU) told my

medics to get refusals. My medics talked the

patient's into being transported. They started to

package and the medic from the other service said he

would call for back up and proceeded to leave the

scene with a code 1 patient. The MICU abandoned

patients to a BLS. When the back up unit finally

arrived 20 minutes later, they tried getting refusals

from the patient because they did not go with them. I

told him to get off of my units and to go get his

refusals at the hospital.

Anyway the other issue now is that like in Laredo,

alot of patients do not like the EMS provided by FD

because:

1. there's about 10 people in your house.

2. there's no such thing as code 1 response.

Sometimes they request no lights or siren.

3. they do not usually transport to a hospital of

choice or out of the city.

3. sometimes the medics are just plain rude (happens

everywhere, not just FD)

4. As a taxpayer I should be able to call who I want

when I want, if I am not happy with the service

provided with the city. There's alot of this here in

Harlingen. Most citizens I know are not happy with

STEC after 20 years of service.

The permits are ok though to have accountability of

who is responding. In my opinion cities who have this

should have unannounced inspections as well because

alot of providers rig their units to pass the initial

inspection and then lose track of their inventory. I

have seen and heard alot of services that are not in

compliance.

Now I also belive TDSHS should have unannounced Drug

screens and take action immediatley for any positive

tests.

If TDSHS wants to control the mount of services

opening they should have an initial start up fee of

$5,000-$10,000.

Salvador Capuchino Jr.

EMT-Paramedic

--- lnmolino@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/30/2005 4:35:48 P.M. Central

> Standard Time,

> hatfield@... writes:

>

> but I am beginning to get the feeling that

> everyone involved will bear some of the

> responsibility for what happened,

> excluding the family and the patient.

>

> And that last line is where the shame comes in, the

> ultimate suffering is on

> the part of the patient who may or may not (as yet

> to be proven in the legal

> sense) ended getting some level of substandard care.

> Hence we are back to

> the fact there can be NO winners here as it's just

> too ugly all around at this

> point.

>

> Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

> FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

> LNMolino@...

> (Office)

> (Office Fax)

>

> " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

>

> The comments contained in this E-mail are the

> opinions of the author and the

> author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for

> any person or

> organization that I am in any way whatsoever

> involved or associated with unless I

> specifically state that I am doing so. Further this

> E-mail is intended only for its

> stated recipient and may contain private and or

> confidential materials

> retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed

> in the public domain by the

> original author.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

December 30, 2005

Er, Defendants. My bad.

Mike

>

> > " hatfield " <hatfield@n...> wrote:

> > >

> > > What needs to happen, is after all is calm, the services involved

> > need to

> > > sit down and discuss what happened, figure out a way to avoid a

> > repeat, kiss

> > > and make up, and walk away from the table.

> >

> > I'm sure that's what Ray Nolan is praying for at this point. It beats

> > unemployment, which is what should happen at the very least. Both

> > DSHS and TCLEOSE need to take a hard look at his behaviour in this

> > incident.

>

> And Galveston County SO needs to do a use of force review on this

> action taken by one of their deputies while off-duty and working

> another job. At the very least, I hope that LPPD and Baystar have

> notified Galveston County SO so that the appropriate use of force

> documentation and arrest documentation can be generated on their end.

>

> Looks like there may be more plaintiffs.

>

> Mike :/

>

December 30, 2005

Er, Defendants. My bad.

Mike

>

> > " hatfield " <hatfield@n...> wrote:

> > >

> > > What needs to happen, is after all is calm, the services involved

> > need to

> > > sit down and discuss what happened, figure out a way to avoid a

> > repeat, kiss

> > > and make up, and walk away from the table.

> >

> > I'm sure that's what Ray Nolan is praying for at this point. It beats

> > unemployment, which is what should happen at the very least. Both

> > DSHS and TCLEOSE need to take a hard look at his behaviour in this

> > incident.

>

> And Galveston County SO needs to do a use of force review on this

> action taken by one of their deputies while off-duty and working

> another job. At the very least, I hope that LPPD and Baystar have

> notified Galveston County SO so that the appropriate use of force

> documentation and arrest documentation can be generated on their end.

>

> Looks like there may be more plaintiffs.

>

> Mike :/

>

December 30, 2005

> " hatfield " <hatfield@n...> wrote:

> >

> > What needs to happen, is after all is calm, the services involved

> need to

> > sit down and discuss what happened, figure out a way to avoid a

> repeat, kiss

> > and make up, and walk away from the table.

>

> I'm sure that's what Ray Nolan is praying for at this point. It beats

> unemployment, which is what should happen at the very least. Both

> DSHS and TCLEOSE need to take a hard look at his behaviour in this

> incident.

And Galveston County SO needs to do a use of force review on this

action taken by one of their deputies while off-duty and working

another job. At the very least, I hope that LPPD and Baystar have

notified Galveston County SO so that the appropriate use of force

documentation and arrest documentation can be generated on their end.

Looks like there may be more plaintiffs.

Mike :/

December 30, 2005

> " hatfield " <hatfield@n...> wrote:

> >

> > What needs to happen, is after all is calm, the services involved

> need to

> > sit down and discuss what happened, figure out a way to avoid a

> repeat, kiss

> > and make up, and walk away from the table.

>

> I'm sure that's what Ray Nolan is praying for at this point. It beats

> unemployment, which is what should happen at the very least. Both

> DSHS and TCLEOSE need to take a hard look at his behaviour in this

> incident.

And Galveston County SO needs to do a use of force review on this

action taken by one of their deputies while off-duty and working

another job. At the very least, I hope that LPPD and Baystar have

notified Galveston County SO so that the appropriate use of force

documentation and arrest documentation can be generated on their end.

Looks like there may be more plaintiffs.

Mike :/

December 30, 2005

> " hatfield " <hatfield@n...> wrote:

> >

> > What needs to happen, is after all is calm, the services involved

> need to

> > sit down and discuss what happened, figure out a way to avoid a

> repeat, kiss

> > and make up, and walk away from the table.

>

> I'm sure that's what Ray Nolan is praying for at this point. It beats

> unemployment, which is what should happen at the very least. Both

> DSHS and TCLEOSE need to take a hard look at his behaviour in this

> incident.

And Galveston County SO needs to do a use of force review on this

action taken by one of their deputies while off-duty and working

another job. At the very least, I hope that LPPD and Baystar have

notified Galveston County SO so that the appropriate use of force

documentation and arrest documentation can be generated on their end.

Looks like there may be more plaintiffs.

Mike :/

December 30, 2005

You cannot resist an arrest, even an illegal one. You can, however,

resist excessive force - note that that's a defense. Excessive force,

however, is something a jury will ultimately decide. Long story

short? It's a misdemeanor, so it's likely the County Atty/DA will

review the case for prosecution... there's no guarantee that the

arrest will result in prosecution - that depends on how the officer

writes it up, what, if anything the witnesses said, and what, if

anything, was recorded on the officer's dash-cam and body mic.

Mike

On 12/30/05, Wallace Blum, EMT-Paramedic

wrote:

> Hey Mike.....back in the day before I got out of LE, it was against

> the law to resist " arrest " even if the arrest or " detention " was

> unlawful/wrongful. Since none of us know the real story, assume the

> cop was " roughing " the medic up, and the medic " defended " himself,

> then the the medic could still be charged with " resisting arrest " if

> there was " furtherence " or " interefering with the official duties of a

> peace officer. " Not saying it's right, but isn't that still the case?

>

> CB

>

December 30, 2005