I read this thread before I joined (yeah, I lurked), so here's my chance to reply.
If everything went down as she said, I understand the suit against the guy who teched the call, and whatever happens to hiom, he deserves it.
That said, I do NOT agree with suing the guy's partner.
18. Defendant Smith then, in one fast motion and while keeping his gaze directly into the plaintiff’s eyes, removed plaintiff’s outer jacket, tank-top, and sport’s bra, then completely covered her with a blanket.
Isn't it obvious? He looked her in the eye so that she would KNOW he wasn't checking out her chest! He did what he needed to do to assess the patient, and made it blatenly obvious that he was not doing it for the thrills.
19. Defendant Smith did not remove or even touch plaintiff’s pants.
So what's the problem?
38. Defendant Smith failed to monitor the actions of Davis,
I'm almost sure that if I'm on the gurney, I want the driver to be DRIVING, not watching what's going on in the back!
Arg!