Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Medical emergencies call for swift and professional response from emergency medical personnel. However, what happens when a patient sustains additional injuries during transit due to unforeseen circumstances? The following case highlights the complexities of dealing with immunity laws for government employees and emphasizes the importance of seeking legal counsel to navigate statutory requirements and potential exceptions when considering legal action in such situations.
One morning, Clovina Stein felt like she was having a heart attack at her home in Gretna, Louisiana, so she requested emergency medical services. They took Stein to the hospital in an ambulance. While in transit to the hospital, the driver had to make a sudden stop. That caused one of the emergency medical technicians to fall on top of Stein.
Once at the hospital, Stein was treated for a heart attack. Stein filed a lawsuit against the city of Gretna, the responding emergency personnel, and other defendants, claiming she suffered severe injuries when the emergency medical technician fell on her while in transit to the hospital.
After a trial, the trial court dismissed Stein’s claims, finding that qualified immunity under La.R.S. 37:1732 for emergency medical personnel applied because Stein had not shown any responding emergency personnel intentionally harmed or committed gross negligence. Stein appealed.
On appeal, Stein argued the trial court erred in finding the responding personnel were entitled to immunity under La. R.S. 37:1732 because the city of Gretna, who employed the personnel, did not provide any evidence of their training or certification. Stein claimed without such evidence, they were not entitled to immunity.
The city of Gretna countered the statute did not require them to provide such evidence about the employees’ qualifications. The city of Gretna argued it presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the finding the employees were entitled to immunity. The trial court found Stein had not presented sufficient evidence to establish any of the responding medical personnel had engaged in an intentional act to harm her or otherwise acted grossly negligent.
The appellate court found that the city of Gretna had only provided evidence about the employees’ certification, not their training. Under La. R.S. 37:1732(C), the city of Gretna was required to present evidence the employees had the required training to qualify for immunity. However, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding none of the responding employees were negligent, so the city of Gretna could not be liable. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding in favor of the city of Gretna and its employees and resulting dismissal of Stein’s claims.
When seeking justice for injuries sustained during emergencies, understanding the legal landscape and knowing your rights becomes paramount. While immunity laws can pose obstacles, knowledgeable legal counsel can help you navigate these complexities and evaluate your case appropriately. Remember, when the stakes are high, a skilled attorney can be your greatest advocate in securing the compensation and accountability you deserve.
Additional Sources: Clovina Stein v. City of Gretna, Emergency Medical Services Paramedic Association, Mayor Ronnie C. Harris, ABC and Def Employees, and XYZ Ins. Co.
Article Written By Berniard Law Firm
Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Liability of Emergency Service Providers: Court Clarifies Duty of Ambulance Dispatcher in Dropped 911 Call
Can a Train be Held Liable for the Delay in Emergency Services?