911 Immunity Bill Faces Vote

A mother’s telephone call to 911 pleading for instructions on how to give CPR to her drowning baby, and a dispatcher’s refusal to give her that help, have spurred a crusade by state firefighters for a state law to prevent such incidents.

The state Senate is scheduled to vote today on the “good Samaritan” bill, which would grant limited immunity from civil suits to emergency dispatchers who give help--including CPR instruction--over the telephone.

According to the California State Firefighters’ Assn., the 1-year-old baby drowned last July in a rural Northern California county because the county, which has not been publicly identified, refuses to let its 911 emergency dispatchers give medical advice over the telephone.

“Many city and county governments fear malpractice suits,” said Eldon Nagel, director of the Sacramento-based firefighters’ association. “The result is that dispatchers often can’t give out information, even if it might save a life.”

The firefighters have used the Northern California case as their prime example of why dispatchers need to be legally free to give help over the phone.

Don Barkas, a Santa Barbara County emergency services dispatcher who is among those lobbying for the legislation, said Thursday that firefighters are not publicly disclosing the location or the identities of people involved in the Northern California case. But Barkas said it occurred July 8 in a rural, mountainous county.

“A mother was washing her car, and (was) using a five-gallon bucket,” said Barkas. “The child fell into the bucket of water. The mother called the 911 number and was very calm. She asked for CPR instruction, but the dispatcher wouldn’t help her.” The infant drowned.

Nagel said he has listened to a tape recording of the mother’s ultimately frantic efforts to get help from the emergency dispatcher. “It’s very tragic,” Nagel said. “At the end, she is pleading for help.”

A bill proposing limited immunity for emergency dispatchers had been pending in the Senate before the child died, but Nagel and Barkas said that incident helped to galvanize efforts to pass the bill.

“The (California) Trial Lawyers’ Assn. had opposed some parts of the bill, and they got some amendments,” said Barkas. The amended bill allows suits only against dispatchers who are found to be “grossly negligent.” State law distinguishes between “negligent” and “grossly negligent,” the latter being harder to prove in court.

Barkas said that only a handful of California cities and counties currently allow their dispatchers to give emergency medical information over the telephone. The result, Barkas said, is that people call dispatchers for life-and-death help, but dispatchers cannot respond. “People are dying, and we’re hanging up on them,” he said.

(Los Angeles city and county fire officials say their dispatchers are free to give information, including instructions for CPR and the birth of babies, as long as the dispatcher reads from pre-approved cards.)

Nagel said that although the firefighters’ association has no other documented case of loss of life, “it’s possible that other lives have been lost, and we just haven’t found out about them.”

The bill before the Senate would require emergency dispatchers to pass a state-authorized competency test and be certified as a condition of being granted limited freedom from civil suits.