How sad that Vince Valentino would say "they are just looking for a deep pocket to recover some compensation" Leave it to a lawyer to make a cold blooded statement while a family grieves.

it is sad and somewhat an error by the emt, but if the patient was already under cpr her heart was apparently not beating and she was apparently not breathing which makes them clinically deceased... you cannot kill someone that is already dead. this would also mean that every paramedic that has misplaced an endotracheal tube and did not recognize it immediately should be sued as well. this is a bad precedent. the poor patient was dealt a bad hand in regards to her health problems but trying to blame the emt for trying to help is the reason fewer and fewer people are willing to get into ems in the first place.

As we all know the definition of Negligence is as follows; "Failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent Emergency Medical Services provider would use in a similar situation." Defined in short by 4 components; The duty to act, actions were at level below standard of care (Breach of Duty), damage to patient occurred, breach was the direct cause of the damage. I dont think anyone can deny that there was a "Duty to Act" for this EMT. He was called with an expectation of knowledge and proficiency in the field of EMS. During his time with the patient, he did render care that was below the "Standard of Care". BUT Here is where the grey area starts. The argument has been made that the patients actual cause of death was very likely present prior to the EMTs care. And that the present condition had already killed the patient. So, that being true, was damage actually caused to the patient? In one light, the patients condition couldnt be improved due to the obstruction, on the other side, the patients condition was unimprovable.

Can you damage a dead person? Think about ribs cracking during CPR.

The EMTs actions were not professional or proficient. And we will never know if the patient could have been resuscitated had the obstruction not occurred. But to convict someone in the court of law they have to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This situation leaves just enough room for doubt. I understand both sides of the fence and a strong case for Negligence can be made. I think this EMT has just enough doubt to only warrant strong discipline, but personally i cant comfortably say his career should end on a negligence charge.

Should the Manufacturer be blamed as well? Sure. Then we should blame spoons for making Rose ODonnell fat.

The situation is a sad one. Its too bad that the young girl died. Unfortunately, the EMT did may have caused the death. But it was obviously accidental. I dont believe that the the EMT was negligent, even if he did use the suction device improperly.

as an emt with a full code going on there are alot of things going on in your head. obviously the emt made a mistake that MAY have caused this girls death...but in now way was this on purpose. and with the final line in this story...thats the part that bothers me. volunteer firefighters and emts have the same exact training as "professional" firefighter/emts. in my eyes every firefighter or emt is a professional, volunteer or paid, there is only a difference in the pay check.

Where does Mrs.Morris think the paid EMS workers come from.They are hired from the volunteers.I know first hand we now have paid EMS in our station they all were volunteers from the 2 stations in our county.They make mistakes just like the volunteers just because they are paid makes no difference in training we all train the same.

{{Morris said the lawsuit became their only recourse to hold someone accountable for Matterns untimely death.}}


Yeah, her collapsing and dying that initially prompted the call to 911, had nothing to do with it.

Its part of grief, we all know this. Anger, Blame... She died. Its gotta be someones fault, it cant just be a pre-existing, life threatening medical condition.