Med Mal News

NJ Statute Offers No Immunity to Rescue Squad

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled, in Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, A-28-10, that although individual members of rescue squads that provide intermediate and basic life support services are by law immune from suit, the squads themselves do not enjoy that same privillege. Squads that provide “intermediate life support services” are defined as those that perform basic life support functions, as well as cardiac monitoring and defibrillation. In Murray, New Jersey's high court overturned lower court holdings that had said these rescue squads are covered by N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29, which provides that “officers and members” of a squad may not be held liable for civil damages for actions taken while rendering “intermediate life support services in good faith” to a patient. In holding that the squads, as entities, were not covered by the law, the Supreme Court relied on the plain language of the statute and noted that wording that would have extended immunity to these rescue squads was stripped from the proposed statute before its 1985 passage. In contrast, legislation covering immunity from suit for members of “advanced services” squads ' those that not only offer basic and intermediate services but also more advanced medical care, such as intravenous therapy, drug administration and trauma care ' also specifically protects those squads as entities from suit for actions taken by their personnel while such care is being rendered. See N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the squad's contention that it could not be held responsible if none of its members were also liable. “If the Legislature intended to vicariously immunize the Rescue Squad when the Squad members are shielded from civil liability, it would have drafted a statute similar to one found in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,” that says, “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not liable,” stated the court. The ruling reinstates a claim brought by the family of a man who died of a gunshot wound because the rescue squad that responded to the emergency allegedly delayed his transfer to a hospital and provided him inadequate care.

NH Hepatitis C Outbreak: Additional Victim Tests Positive

On Aug. 7, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) announced that a 31st person has tested positive for hepatitis C related to the outbreak at Exeter Hospital blamed on a rogue hospital worker. That hospital employee, David Kwiatkowski, stands accused of stealing the strong painkiller Fentanyl and injecting himself, then leaving the used and contaminated syringes behind for use on patients. According to an affidavit filed in federal court in New Hampshire in July, Kwiatkowski worked at Exeter Hospital between April 2011 and May 2012, where he was seen exiting his place of work, the cardiac catheterization laboratory, during procedures, as well as attending procedures on his off-days. He has been formally charged with obtaining controlled substances by fraud and tampering with a consumer product.

NJ Statute Offers No Immunity to Rescue Squad

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled, in Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, A-28-10, that although individual members of rescue squads that provide intermediate and basic life support services are by law immune from suit, the squads themselves do not enjoy that same privillege. Squads that provide “intermediate life support services” are defined as those that perform basic life support functions, as well as cardiac monitoring and defibrillation. In Murray, New Jersey's high court overturned lower court holdings that had said these rescue squads are covered by N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29, which provides that “officers and members” of a squad may not be held liable for civil damages for actions taken while rendering “intermediate life support services in good faith” to a patient. In holding that the squads, as entities, were not covered by the law, the Supreme Court relied on the plain language of the statute and noted that wording that would have extended immunity to these rescue squads was stripped from the proposed statute before its 1985 passage. In contrast, legislation covering immunity from suit for members of “advanced services” squads ' those that not only offer basic and intermediate services but also more advanced medical care, such as intravenous therapy, drug administration and trauma care ' also specifically protects those squads as entities from suit for actions taken by their personnel while such care is being rendered. See N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the squad's contention that it could not be held responsible if none of its members were also liable. “If the Legislature intended to vicariously immunize the Rescue Squad when the Squad members are shielded from civil liability, it would have drafted a statute similar to one found in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,” that says, “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not liable,” stated the court. The ruling reinstates a claim brought by the family of a man who died of a gunshot wound because the rescue squad that responded to the emergency allegedly delayed his transfer to a hospital and provided him inadequate care.

NH Hepatitis C Outbreak: Additional Victim Tests Positive

On Aug. 7, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) announced that a 31st person has tested positive for hepatitis C related to the outbreak at Exeter Hospital blamed on a rogue hospital worker. That hospital employee, David Kwiatkowski, stands accused of stealing the strong painkiller Fentanyl and injecting himself, then leaving the used and contaminated syringes behind for use on patients. According to an affidavit filed in federal court in New Hampshire in July, Kwiatkowski worked at Exeter Hospital between April 2011 and May 2012, where he was seen exiting his place of work, the cardiac catheterization laboratory, during procedures, as well as attending procedures on his off-days. He has been formally charged with obtaining controlled substances by fraud and tampering with a consumer product.