Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:29:41.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Medical Services Liability Litigation in the United States: 1987 to 1992

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

David L. Morgan ,
Michael P. Wainscott  and
Heidi C. Knowles
David L. Morgan*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas
Michael P. Wainscott
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas
Heidi C. Knowles
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas
*
Division of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235-8579USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Although emergency medical services (EMS) liability litigation is a concern of many prehospital health care providers, there have been no studies of these legal cases nationwide and no local case studies since 1987.

Methods:

A retrospective case series was obtained from a computerized database of trial court cases filed against EMS agencies nation-wide. All legal cases that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study sample. These cases must have involved either ambulance collisions (AC) or patient care (PC) incidents, and they must have been closed between 1987 and 1992.

Results:

There were 76 cases that met the inclusion criteria. Half of these cases involved an AC, and the other cases alleged negligence of a PC encounter. Thirty (78.9%) of the plaintiffs in the AC cases were other motorists, and 35 (92.1%) of the plaintiffs in the PC cases were EMS patients. Almost half of the cases named an individual (usually an emergency medical technician or paramedic) as a codefendant. Thirty-one (40.8%) of the cases were closed without any payment to the plaintiff. There were five cases with plaintiffs' awards or settlements greater than [US] $1 million. Most (71.0%) ofthe ACs occurred in an intersection or when one vehicle rear-ended another vehicle. The most common negligence allegations in the PC cases were arrival delay, inadequate assessment, inadequate treatment, patient transport delay, and no patient transport.

Conclusion:

Risk management for EMS requires specific knowledge of the common sources of EMS liability litigation. This sample of recent legal cases provides the common allegations of negligence. Recommendations to decrease the legal risk of EMS agencies and prehospital providers are suggested.

Keywords

ambulance collisionsemergency medical servicesjurisprudencelegal liabilitylegal medicinelitigationmalpracticenegligencerisk management
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 214 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Shanaberger, CJ: Legal issues in medical control. In: Kuehl, A (ed): NAEMSP EMS Medical Directors' Handbook. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby-Year Book, 1989, pp 393–404.Google Scholar
2. Ayres, RJ: Legal considerations in prehospital care. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1993;11:853–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Henry, GL: Risk management and high-risk issues in emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1993;11:905–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Aransonian, RD: Medical-Legal Concerns in EMS. In: Roush, WR (ed): Principles of EMS Systems. Dallas: American College of Emergency Physicians, 1989, pp 165–174.Google Scholar
5. Soler, JM, Montes, MF, Egol, AB, et al. : The 10-year malpractice experience of a large urban EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:982–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Goldberg, RJ, Zautcke, JL, Koenigsberg, MD, et al. : A review of prehospital care litigation in a large metropolitan EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Elling, R: Dispelling the myths in ambulance accidents. JEMS 1989;14:60–64.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Clawson, JJ: Running “hot.” JEMS 1991;16:11–13.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Youngberg, BJ: Medical-legal considerations involved in the transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care Clin 1992:8:501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Frew, SA: Emergency medical services legal issues for the emergency physician. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1990;8:41–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Rolph, JE, Kravitz, RL, McGuigan, K: Malpractice claims data as a quality improvement tool. II. Is targeting effective? JAMA 1991;266:2093–2097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Auerbach, JS, Morris, JA, Phillips, JB, et al. : An analysis of ambulance accidents in Tennessee. JAMA 1987;258:1487–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hunt, RC, Brown, LH, Cabinum, ES, et al. : Lights and siren vs. no lights and siren: Ambulance transport time from the scene to the emergency department. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1993;8:s67. Abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. De Lorenzo, RA, Eilers, MA: Lights and siren: A review of emergency vehicle warning systems. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:1331–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Selden, BS, Schnitzer, PG, Nolan, FX: Medicolegal documentation of prehospital triage. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:547–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Zachariah, BS, Bryan, D, Pepe, PE, et al. : Follow-up and outcome of patients who decline or are denied transport by EMS. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Sucov, A, Verdile, VP, Garettson, D, et al. : The outcome of patients refusing prehospital transportation. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar