Two from Pittsburgh EMS face discipline in snowstorm death

At least two members of the city paramedics union face disciplinary action in the Curtis Mitchell case, their union chief said Monday, while an official of the 911 dispatchers' union said none of his members faces punishment in the incident.

Mr. Mitchell died Feb. 7 after he and his girlfriend called 911 for medical help 10 times over a 30 hour-period.

Mr. Mitchell, 50, of Hazelwood, complained of stomach pain, and the couple began phoning 911 the morning of Feb. 6, during a storm that dumped nearly 2 feet of snow on the city. By the time an ambulance arrived Feb. 7, Mr. Mitchell had died.

Paramedics union President Anthony Weinmann said two union members had received notices of pending discipline, but no information about what type of discipline or when punishment would be meted out. He declined to say whether the two are part of an ambulance crew or have other duties in the city EMS bureau.

Both the city and Allegheny County, which operates the 911 center and employs the dispatchers, launched internal reviews after Mr. Mitchell's death.

Neither has provided details of its investigation so far.

Rick Grejda, business agent for Service Employees International Union Local 668, which represents the dispatchers, said none of his members will be disciplined.

County spokesman Kevin Evanto said the city EMS bureau assigns its own employees in the dispatch center to help with medical calls. However, Mr. Weinmann said, those EMS employees do not prioritize calls for dispatchers.

Mr. Weinmann has said that all three ambulances that aborted calls to Mr. Mitchell's home did so at the direction of dispatchers or district EMS chiefs.

Last month, Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Michael Huss said ambulance crews that couldn't drive to Mr. Mitchell's home should have gone on foot to treat him.

According to a state review of the case, that's exactly what one crew tried to do, only to be called off by a dispatcher.

"The crew of Medic 7 did attempt to access the scene on foot but aborted the attempt after being canceled by the dispatcher," according to the March 18 report by Joseph W. Schmider, director of the state Health Department's EMS bureau.

While the city has not released its internal investigation, it asked the health department to review its findings. The task fell to Mr. Schmider's office.

He concluded that the city EMS's handling of Mr. Mitchell's calls did not violate the EMS Act -- the state law governing care standards. However, he concurred with the city's findings about the need for improvements in communications and logistics.

In his report, Mr. Schmider said the city should "identify and link multiple calls from the same address." In Mr. Mitchell's case, each 911 call was treated as a separate request for help.

"It was found that the ambulance crews were not aware that there were previous calls from the same address. However, the dispatchers were aware of the multiple calls and specifically commented about the repeated calls from the address," said Mr. Schmider, who reviewed dispatch tapes, dispatch center documents and a report prepared by Pittsburgh EMS medical director Dr. Ronald Roth.

Mr. Schmider said the city should evaluate its policies on when to "cancel" 911 calls.

For example, if one call is canceled, "should you cancel a second one?" the state's deputy health secretary, Michael Huff, said in an interview.

The calls from Mr. Mitchell's home came during a storm-related surge in 911 calls.

Mr. Weinmann said one of Mr. Mitchell's calls was downgraded in priority from the time it came in to the dispatch center to the time it was relayed to the ambulance. He said he didn't know how or why.

Mr. Schmider said: "The city does have a plan for queuing low-priority calls when the system is temporarily overwhelmed. However, the plan may not be adequate in situations that delay responses by many hours, and low-priority calls may not rise to the level that gets a response by an EMS provider."