Gross Negligence Standard in EMS

Negligence By definition, simple negligence is negligence that is neither gross nor wanton. Thus, it is a default form of negligence (USLegal.com, 2015). Gross negligence is defined as "reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others…a conscious violation of other people's right to safety" (law.com, 2015). Wanton negligence is similar in nature. Implied is that the person has failed to use ordinary care.

Simple negligence is therefore not the same intensity as gross negligence, which is very risky to others, so is usually found to be unconcerned with others, but not to the same high degree of risk as would be the case in gross negligence. These different definitions of negligence can be applied to health care situations. For example, health care practitioners are obligated to provide care in a manner where they are safeguarding the patient, and doing what is best for the patient.

Failure to perform one's duties as they have been trained or as expected may bring about some sort of legal action for negligence. Negligence in the medical context means a deviation from the expected norms of treatment in a given situation, either by commission or omission, that results in added pain, suffering or death of the patient. Health care practitioners have a duty of care to the patient, and so when there is a breach of that duty in some way, this would be classed as negligence.

EMS providers are typically held to a gross negligence standard, and it would seem that this has arisen because of the nature of their work. They work under trying conditions, often in the field, and are first responders in case of emergency. Thus, they are seeking to stabilize a medical situation by any means necessary. They do not have, therefore, the relatively controlled conditions that doctors and nurses theoretically have (Maggiore, 2006).

They often lack the time to fully assess a patient's condition, especially in situations where a patient might already be unresponsive at the time of their arrival. Thus, EMS technicians are making decisions more quickly -- there is usually urgency -- in a more chaotic environment, and with less information than other medical practitioners. For this reason, it makes sense that EMS providers would need added protection under law.

They see many patients in such circumstances, and it is likely that more patients will die in their care -- in many cases there is little they can do about that. For EMS providers, the simple negligence standard is too weak. It implies that that EMS technician may face legal action for any mistake, and that would be extremely burdensome to the profession. So it is entirely reasonable that EMS would face the gross negligence standard, rather than the simple negligence standard.

First, it reflects reality, in particular the conditions under which EMTs work. Second, it reflects a pragmatic move to limit the downside risk of doing that job -- nobody would enter this profession under a simple negligence standard because they could be held liable for every mistake, and would face legal action for split second decisions under duress, just because the patient has died. Attracting and retaining talent would be very difficult, very costly, and simply untenable for many municipalities. Thus, the quality of EMS care would decline.

So for reasons both pragmatic, and perfectly logical, the gross negligence standard makes sense. The only real question is whether gross negligence is a reasonable standard for others in the health care profession. That is trickier -- simple negligence certainly increases the risk to these.