Legal Lesson of the Month: Suit Over Naked Traffic Death Can Proceed

EMS can be full of interesting and tricky legal scenarios. While you can’t have an attorney ride with you, it behooves providers to have at least some familiarity with the principles, precedents, and major issues of EMS law. To that end EMS World is pleased to offer the EMS Legal Lesson of the Month.

These cases are presented by prominent attorneys in the EMS field. This month’s comes from Larry Bennett, program chair for fire science and emergency management at the University of Cincinnati. Bennett’s department publishes a monthly Fire & EMS and Safety Law newsletter; subscribe to that by e-mailing Lawrence.bennett@uc.edu or read the latest edition here.

Case: Paul Tarashuk v. Orangeburg County, South Carolina; Orangeburg County Emergency Medical Services; et al.

Decided: March 2022

Verdict: Judge J. Michelle Childs, U.S. District Court of South Carolina (Orangeburg Division), denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Facts: A truck driver called 9-1-1 to report a man, later identified as Paul Tarashuk, was naked and had climbed on his tractor trailer at an on-ramp for Interstate 95, ridden on the catwalk, and detached air lines to his brakes. Police from 3 agencies responded and requested EMS. The man sat in an ambulance for 12 minutes, head down, not responding to questions. A medic “pushed an ammonia inhalant up his nose” and took his vitals. His blood pressure was 160/82 and pulse 124 bpm. Law enforcement and EMS were unaware of the man’s identity throughout their interactions, as he refused or was unable to state his full name and carried no identification.

A deputy sheriff, recording the event, then decided to drop the man off at a closed gas station, telling him, “You are not under arrest. I’m gonna give you a ride… You’re not going to jail, you’re not under arrest, I’m going to give you a ride… I’ll figure out where you live. I’ll give you a ride to a safe environment. That’s all I want.” Deputy Clifford Doroski ultimately dropped Tarashuk off at a closed gas station. Tarashuk then walked back to I-95 and was struck by a vehicle and killed a few hours later.

Childs held that while Tarashuk’s family cannot sue the county for “failure to train” the deputy and paramedics, they can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to accommodate the patient by not taking him to the hospital.

Key quote: “Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to indicate that two trained paramedics should have been able to gauge the specific accommodation required here and taken Tarashuk to the hospital. Ultimately, whether the circumstances alleged here are such that responding paramedics knew or should have known Tarashuk was obviously disabled presents a genuine question of material fact and precludes summary judgment.”

Explanation: The judge ruled the plaintiff showed there was a genuine question of material fact as to whether the EMS providers were aware of Tarashuk’s mental disability, which would trigger their obligation to provide reasonable ADA accommodations. It is evident from video and testimonial evidence that Tarashuk was confused, disorganized, and nonverbal throughout the encounter. The plaintiff identified sufficient facts under which Orangeburg EMS providers Alison Harmon and Jamie Givens, especially in light of their medical training, could properly have concluded Tarashuk “was in the midst of an acute psychotic break.”

Legal lesson: EMS providers should know the law in their state and local protocols on when a patient should be taken to hospital for psychiatric evaluation.