- Free Consultation: 800-604-0704
County Immunity: Coit v. Nappi 3
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog features Maryland appellate opinions in medical malpractice cases. This post is part 3 of the reported opinion in Coit v. Nappi, 248 Md. App. 44 (2020). It was a wrongful death case against an ambulance crew and the county. Part 1, I discussed the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the evidence standard of willful or gross negligence and the resulting immunity for the paramedic and EMT. In part 2, I addressed the issue of paramedic causation. In this part 3, I discuss county immunity.
Factual Background
The 21-year-old patient died of a cardiac arrest following an asthma attack. Afterward, his parents and estate filed a wrongful death claim in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The defendants were a paramedic and an EMT. They responded to the 911 call for the patient, and their employer, Baltimore County, was also a defendant. The circuit subsequently granted the defense motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal. (Op. at 1).
The defendants, the paramedic and EMT, argued that they were entitled to paramedic immunity under CJP 5-603 (the Good Samaritan Act) and CJP 5-604 (Fire & Rescue Companies Act). Baltimore County also argued for governmental immunity under CJP 5-301. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence. Also, the defendants’ policies and customs, which they argued were not in line with standard emergency medical procedures, prevented them from receiving immunity.
The plaintiffs then responded that there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence and that the defendant’s policies and customs, which they argued were not in line with standard emergency medical procedures, kept them from receiving immunity. (Id.).
CSA
The Court of Special Appeals adopted the opinion of the circuit court. (Id. at 2). The CSA rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that the defendants were willful and grossly negligent in their pre-arrival and post-arrival and were not entitled to paramedic immunity. Paramedic immunity, as provided under the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire & Rescue Companies Act, protects emergency responders from liability when giving care in good faith. The courts found the evidence did not establish willful or grossly negligent conduct. (Id. at 9-10, 11). As a result, the responders were to receive paramedic immunity based on the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire & Rescue Companies Act and to judgment as a matter of law (Id.).
The courts also found that the plaintiffs were required to have a medical expert to establish causation, but they did not have one. (Id. at 12).
Appellate Court on County Immunity
The plaintiffs also brought a claim against Baltimore County, the employer of the paramedic and EMT. They argued that the patient’s constitutional rights “were violated as a direct result of Baltimore County policies and customs which contributed to the deprivation of Mr. Coit’s federal constitutional or statutory rights to life” (Id. at 13).
The plaintiffs argued that a lack of a delayed response policy would require emergency medical service providers to notify a dispatcher if there will be a delay in responding to an emergency. Afterward, Baltimore County responded that it is entitled to immunity. (Id.). The person seeking emergency assistance could then make a decision regarding their course of action based on that information. (Id.).
The courts concluded: “There is no legal or factual basis for a direct claim against Baltimore County” (Id.). Firstly, there was no evidence of a delayed response. There was also no evidence that a delayed response policy would have provided a better outcome for the patient (Id.).
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on County Immunity
The courts recognized that a plaintiff can bring suits against a county under 42 USC 1983 for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. (Id.). However, the courts’ opinions do not tell us whether the plaintiffs ever identified the “federal constitutional or statutory rights to life” upon which they based their claims against Baltimore County.
We also cannot tell from the courts’ opinions where the plaintiffs got their delayed-response policy theory. There is no indication that it came from a court case that has upheld liability based on such a policy.
The courts did not expend much analysis in rejecting liability based on county immunity. The three Blog posts on this case make it apparent that the plaintiffs did not come close to satisfying their burden on the three issues involved.
It is unclear why the court decided to publish this opinion. In addition, I’m not sure what the experienced practitioner gains from the case. Based on the prior Maryland cases asserting claims against paramedics, the fact pattern described by the court had no chance of prevailing. It did not matter how it was couched or presented.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.