We Sun Pak Complains of Stomach Pain, City Paramedics Offer Alka-Seltzer Instead of Taking Him to the Hospital
	Court Turns Down Paramedics' Assertion of Governmental Immunity in the Lawsuit
	Duties of Government Nurses Not Uniquely
	Different From Those of Private-Sector Nurses Communication Problems

Facts: Two city paramedics, Henderson and Jones, responded to a 911 call from a person requesting that an ambulance be sent to We Kun Pak's room at Irving hotel. Pak complained of stomach pain. The paramedics examined Pak and decided not to transport him to the hospital. Jones asserted that he asked Pak if he wanted to go to the hospital and that Pak said, "No." Pak claims that he could not understand English.

The paramedics do not have an established procedure for dealing with patients who do not speak English. They are taught several methods of insuring adequate communication. The paramedics are taught to communicate in any manner they decide will effectively communicate with the person.

Michael Evitts, assistant fire chief for the city, stated that he is familiar with the statutes and ordinances applicable to city paramedics. He stated that there were no statutes or ordinances that compelled paramedics to transport persons to hospitals. Jones is a paramedic/fire equipment operator, and Henderson is a registered nurse serving as a paramedic.

In his complaint, Pak alleged that Henderson and Jones were negligent in failing to properly carry out [their] medical responsibilities to [Pak] in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice, thereby causing injuries to [Pak]. Pak alleged twenty acts of negligence including. (1) failing to provide proper medical advice; (2) suggesting that Pak take Alka-Seltzer; (3) failing to transport him to the hospital; (4) failing to detect or seek treatment of the drug addiction of Jones, a paramedic; (5) failing to determine Pak's ability to communicate; (6) failing to assume that Pak was suffering the most life-threatening condition; (7) failing to seek advice from a medical physician to determine the potential seriousness of Pak's condition; (8) exceeding the level and scope of their training by making an independent medical judgment; and (9) failing to use a stethoscope to assess Pak's bowel sounds.

In the motion for summary judgment, Henderson and Jones alleged that they were protected from suit and liability by official immunity. The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment from which this appeal ensued.

Court Decision: The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's denial of Henderson's and Jones's motion for summary judgment. Official immunity protects public employees from liability if: (1) their position has quasi-judicial status; (2) they were acting in good faith; and (3) they were acting within their authority as a quasi-judicial employee. The official immunity doctrine is based on the public policy consideration that government officials, when acting in the circumstances described above, should be free to conduct the administrative affairs of government effectively and vigorously, without the fear of personal liability or threat of damage suits.

Government employees are not entitled to official immunity if their acts are "ministerial" acts that involve mere obedience of orders or performance of duties requiring nongovernmental choices, as opposed to "discretionary" acts requiring personal deliberation, decision, and judgment involving the government.

When the acts complained of are performed by medical personnel employed by the government, courts analyze the quasi-judicial nature of the duties involved on the basis of whether those duties are uniquely different from those of individuals involved in the same duties in the private sector or whether a function unique to government is being exercised.

Treatment of a patient is not a quasi-judicial function that entitles a government official to assert the defense of official immunity if it involves the exercise of medical judgment rather than governmental judgment. If Henderson and Jones were making medical decisions within the scope of their responsibilities as city paramedics, as alleged by Pak, they are entitled to assert the affirmative defense of official immunity only if they had duties uniquely different from paramedics engaged in similar practice in the private sector or exercised a function unique to government.

The trial court's order is affirmed.

The City of Irivng, et al. v. Pak 885 S.W. 2d 189; 1994 Tex. App.

Next Chapter