 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stodgell v. City of Warroad9/16/2003
cope of official immunity to this case would threaten to erect a shield against malpractice liability that is unavailable to private practitioners." Id.
The city attempts to distinguish Terwilliger, arguing that the personnel there were guided by the county policy of providing mental health services, while the ambulance attendants had no statutes, rules, or regulations dictating specific actions. But Terwilliger does not rely on any specific statute or rule. It refers only to "a declared policy of the mental health center to provide treatment for ill persons." Id. The city also describes in detail the ways in which the ambulance attendants had to consider and balance various factors, using their judgment and discretion in transporting and treating Dillon. That the ambulance attendants exercised discretion, however, is not in dispute. Rather, the critical distinction here is that the ambulance attendants were exercising their medical discretion, which is not subject to official immunity despite their municipal employment. The district court did not err in determining that official immunity does not apply to acts involving medical discretion by the ambulance attendants.
We, therefore, remand for further proceedings to determine the city's liability, if any, for its ambulance attendants' actions occurring prior to the existence of the medical emergency.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; motion to strike granted.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|