AFFF

[Dustdevil]

And the hits just keep on coming! Not Collier or St. Lucie County this time, but close enough.

http://www.abc-7.com/global/story.asp?s=11650863

• Firefighter accused of ignoring emergency call
  Posted: Dec 09, 2009 4:23 PM
  Updated: Dec 09, 2009 5:23 PM
  
  NORTH PORT: A North Port firefighter is accused of blowing off an emergency call that ended with a woman dead. The investigation shows the lieutenant didn't show up because he was coaching a youth soccer game and that he also pressured colleagues to cover for him.
  
  For 15 years, Lieutenant Robert Combs responded to emergencies in the City of North Port. But one Saturday morning, a youth soccer game seems to have taken priority over the public's safety.
  
  "It was an inappropriate decision made at that time. I feel like he failed the organization," said North Port Fire Chief Bill Taaffe.
  
  Now Combs and firefighter Frank Bellina, who was at the field with him that morning, are out of a job.
  
  The investigation report states Combs took a ladder truck out of his response area to coach a soccer game. It also states he claims he received permission from captains in the past to coach the youth games while on duty.
  
  "To our knowledge, he has never received permission," said Chief Taaffe.
  
  An internal investigation revealed while Combs and Bellina were at the field, an emergency medical call came in, requesting their truck.
  
  Bellina responded to the call, but Combs stayed at the field.
  
  "There may have been a small delay in the response," said Taaffe.
  
  The medical call is still under review and the chief couldn't comment further.
  
  After the call, according to the investigation's results, Combs knew what he did was wrong, but told his crew the matter would be "kept in house."
  
  He went on to say if employees wanted to make an issue of this and take it up the chain of command, that he would have to rethink how to supervise and discipline him.
  
  We tried contacting Combs Wednesday, but he didn't answer.
  
  He resigned December 2 and Bellina was fired.
  
  "Our number one job in the fire service is to respond for people's call to help. We take that as a very highly ethical standard. That was not adhered to in this case and I think we've appropriately dealt with the situation," said Chief Taaffe.
  
  A woman ended up dying in this emergency call. Because her condition or cause of death is not being released, it's unclear if missing the call contributed to her death.
  
  As for Bellina, he's appealing his termination, has apologized and hopes to get his job back.
  
  By

Kelly Creswell

Edited December 11, 2009 by Dustdevil

[Chief1C]

Couldn't figure out why we'd be discussing Aqueous Film Forming Foam on EMTCity.

I'm sure people die every day, with a fire truck near by equipped with EMS gear. Did they fail to respond, with an ambulance? Who would have gotten there first? The story is missing a lot of key details. Looks like a fail though, but I can't tell how big of a fail, too much "media-i-zation" of the story. That's my word. I'm claiming it.

[HERBIE1]

It's "only" a medical call, not a fire. What' the big deal, right, LT?

It doesn't matter what happened to the patient. This LT refused to respond to an emergency call. He should be disciplined to the fullest extent that department rules allow. Whether or not his actions contributed to the patient's death is another matter and certainly could cost him and his(former) department a lot of money in a civil suit.

[46Young]

Couldn't figure out why we'd be discussing Aqueous Film Forming Foam on EMTCity.

I'm sure people die every day, with a fire truck near by equipped with EMS gear. Did they fail to respond, with an ambulance? Who would have gotten there first? The story is missing a lot of key details. Looks like a fail though, but I can't tell how big of a fail, too much "media-i-zation" of the story. That's my word. I'm claiming it.

That AFFF stuff is great! Say you had an inground swimming pool full of burning fuel, you could just pour a large cup on top, and it'll spread and cover the entire surface, snuffing out the fire.

It's "only" a medical call, not a fire. What' the big deal, right, LT?

It doesn't matter what happened to the patient. This LT refused to respond to an emergency call. He should be disciplined to the fullest extent that department rules allow. Whether or not his actions contributed to the patient's death is another matter and certainly could cost him and his(former) department a lot of money in a civil suit.

He got what he deserved. Kudos to the FD for firing him, thereby maintaining the integrity of the dept. In discussing unions, I've said that dept SOP's and GOP's should be in place to keep employees in line, and also to discourage/prevent sloth. The LT's firing is one such example.

Edited December 11, 2009 by 46Young

[Richard B the EMT]

If I read this correctly, the Lt who didn't respond RESIGNED, and the co-worker/subordinate got fired. Can the survivors of the deceased woman go, financially, after the now former Lt, as well as the fired Fire fighter, and the department they used to be with?

Litigation-happy society we are, probably. And win, too.

[HERBIE1]

If I read this correctly, the Lt who didn't respond RESIGNED, and the co-worker/subordinate got fired. Can the survivors of the deceased woman go, financially, after the now former Lt, as well as the fired Fire fighter, and the department they used to be with?

Litigation-happy society we are, probably. And win, too.

They can go after them and their former employer with a civil suit at any time.

[46Young]

If I read this correctly, the Lt who didn't respond RESIGNED, and the co-worker/subordinate got fired. Can the survivors of the deceased woman go, financially, after the now former Lt, as well as the fired Fire fighter, and the department they used to be with?

Litigation-happy society we are, probably. And win, too.

You know how the game goes - the employer "asks" you to resign, implying that you get to keep your work record clean, rather than having to explain a termination to the next employer. The truth is, when the new employer calls the old, they aren't allowed to speak ill of the employee. However, if they're asked "Would you hire this employee again?" they are permitted to reply "No". The new employer then "reads between the lines". This is why a wise individual never burns their bridges, or draws animosity from co-workers. You never know when you'll need a reference, and you'll be unpleasantly suprised when your adversary becomes your new boss.

Edited December 13, 2009 by 46Young

[stcommodore]

I want to know how he "refused" to respond? In my system a first responder company can place themselves on "fire duty only" typically after a fire or to do drill activities. Many "bad" medics to have found ways to avoid calls after being dispatched to one. Ie being "flagged down" for a "patient" on the way to the first call.

[flight-lp]

I want to know how he "refused" to respond? In my system a first responder company can place themselves on "fire duty only" typically after a fire or to do drill activities. Many "bad" medics to have found ways to avoid calls after being dispatched to one. Ie being "flagged down" for a "patient" on the way to the first call.

Because he was on duty as a paid responder; one that failed to perform his duty. He got exactly what he deserved, although I wish he wouldn't have received the option to resign. Hopefully, he isn't eligible for re-hire. That would be a strong indicator to future employers to think twice before offering him employment.

If an apparatus is incapable of functioning as required, then I could see going into a delayed response mode or possibly being out of service. Going to a personal appointment, unapproved by the higher ups, on the company's dime is fraud.

So my question to all of you Floridians out there is this................................

Is this particular piece of apparatus paid for with public tax funds? Are the tax payers forking out the money for this?

[Richard B the EMT]

Many "bad" medics to have found ways to avoid calls after being dispatched to one. Ie being "flagged down" for a "patient" on the way to the first call.

I cannot say with certanty that this doesn't happen, but if "flagged down" in the NYC 9-1-1 system, a call report must be generated for the flagged down call, with the location of call, nature of the incident, the name and address of the "patient", and any and all treatments rendered. Of course, the next nearest appropriate ambulance must then respond to the original call.

Should I pass the first ambulance and find them goofing off, sorry, but I don't play that game. They will be reported, as I would be reported should I try that.

My "flag down" calls are always legitimate, even if they turn into "patient refused medical assistance and transportation, and signed the release" dispositions. (Hey, my lieutenants would respond when things like that happen, so I might not need to turn in my colleagues.)