INIT915

Link The only thing worse then a field amputation, having to do one on yourself. Edit: Updated Link

Why? It's a legitimate query. You yourself frequently mention why EMS garners little respect and always find themselves in a distant third place behind FD/PD, right? Well, these are among the reasons. No self respecting FD/PD that I'm aware of would allow someone in uniform with multiple face piercings, excessive tattoos, or a mohawk. Since 2008, you can't even get hired where I work with ANY visible tattoo, no matter how classy or conservative it is. Career EMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain they are not taken seriously when they make no effort to present themselves as serious members of emergency services.

Let's take them one at a time. (I italicized the key points, as many of the orders are lengthy.) And I'll reiterate, read the recent decision out of the N.D.N.Y. by Judge Kahn. I've provided the sections of interest in the recent post. And I've listed the four cases in order of preeminence as they could address the instant case. By default, you could assume the recent NDNY case would replace US Trust v NJ, in prominence. 1. U.S. Trust V. N.J. New York and New Jersey had established a Port Authority to enhance water-bound business between the two states. In 1974, the states repealed a 1962 bond agreement which limited the Authority to administer commercial and passenger railroad subsidies.The Court ruled the repeal violated the Constitution. Justice Blackmun argued that the states could have implemented a less drastic solution to encourage people to use commuter train services in lieu of driving their cars. (State leaders thought the increase in bridge fares that would occur with the agreement's repeal would cause this to occur.) Furthermore, since the need to facilitate mass transportation in the New York metropolitan area had been a concern long before 1962, the states could not justify their action as a response to unforeseen circumstances. 2. MASCIO v PUBL EMPLOYEES RET - 1998 FED App. 0328P (6th Cir.) In its balancing of the four factors in the case at bar, the district court placed great weight on the circumstance that, as the court saw it, Judge Mascio had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of both his Bill of Attainder and Contract Clause claims. We find it unnecessary to address the Bill of Attainder Clause question, because it seems to us that the district court was clearly correct in its assessment of the likelihood that Judge Mascio would prevail on the Contract Clause issue. The Contract Clause provides that "[n]o state shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl.1. To prove a violation of this provision, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a "change in state law has `operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.'" General Motors Corp. v. Romein , 503 U.S. 181, 186 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus , 438 U.S. 234, 244 (1978)). In deciding whether such a demonstration has been made, the court must ask whether "(1) a contract exists, (2) a change in law impairs that contract, and (3) the impairment is substantial." Linton v. Comm'r of Health & Environment , 65 F.3d 508, 518 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1155 (1996). If a contractual obligation is substantially impaired by the change in law, the court must further inquire whether the adjustment of the rights of the parties to the contractual relationship was reasonable and appropriate in the service of a legitimate and important public purpose. See Allied Structural Steel , 438 U.S. at 242 -44. The retirement benefits of Ohio public employees vest, by statute, at the time when the retirement allowance or pension is granted by the public employees retirement board. Ohio Rev. Code § 145.561. The effect of this vested rights statute is "to make the engagement of public authorities to pay a pension, upon conditions fulfilled, a contractual obligation founded upon a valid consideration, giving to the pensioner a vested right in his pension which cannot afterwards be impaired or revoked." State ex rel. Cunat v. Trustees of Cleveland Police Relief & Pension Fund , 149 Ohio St. 477, 482, supplemented , 150 Ohio St. 377 (1948). Judge Mascio's pension was fully vested as of October 1, 1996, the date on which he began receiving benefits. As of that date, in other words, Mascio had a contractual right to continued receipt of the benefits. Forfeiture of the benefits would obviously constitute a substantial impairment of this vested contract right. 1 The defendants argue that no impairment could occur unless, as of December 6, 1996, Mascio had a present right to receive both his pension and his judge's salary. We disagree. The newly enacted statute effected a forfeiture of pension benefits, not a forfeiture of salary. Although it is conceivable that under the new law Mascio could have continued to receive his pension benefits by resigning from the office to which he had been re-elected, his contractual right to the pension benefits was not conditioned on his giving up his judicial salary. 3. ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. SPANNAUS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA If the Contract Clause is to retain any meaning at all, however, it must be understood to impose some limits upon the power of a State to abridge existing contractual relationships, even in the exercise of its otherwise legitimate police power. The existence and nature of those limits were clearly indicated in a series of cases in this Court arising from the efforts of the States to deal with the unprecedented emergencies brought on by the severe economic depression of the early 1930's. 4. ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 79 N.Y.2d 39, 588 N.E.2d 51, 580 N.Y.S.2d 153 (1992). And in denying the certified question on appeal from the S.D.N.Y.: The State Comptroller implemented the legislative direction by a "lag payroll": commencing November 7, 1990, affected employees were paid nine rather than 10 days' salary in each two-week pay period, for 10 periods. As a result, during the 1990-1991 fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, employees were paid for 50 rather than 52 weeks of work. Withheld amounts were to be repaid upon termination of employment at the employees' then rate of salary. Plaintiffs are 11 labor organizations representing nonjudicial employees and 11 individual employees of the court system. Each of the labor organizations was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Unified Court System for the three-year period from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1991. Each agreement provided that "Bi-weekly salaries will be computed on the basis of 10 working days." Plaintiffs contend that the lag payroll violates the provision of their contracts that salaries will be computed on the basis of ten working days; that the legislation authorizing the lag payroll is an unconstitutional impairment of their contracts (US Const, art I, § 10); and that the law transgresses their Equal Protection and Due Process rights (US Const, XIV amdmt).

Well, not sure where you went to law school, but they have to do with Contracts they State entered into. That's what the White Plains case will rest on.

What you mention here is the situation New York has found itself in, which is what has brought about Tier V plans. If anyone has doubt, just read the recent decision involving furloughs by Gov. Paterson. Pay special attention to the Judges comments on "likelihood of success on merits" and "sub. i - substantial contract impairment".

Sure Chris. Some easy reading is attached in the below cases. There are others, but these address the issue of Contracts entered into by the State generally. ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. SPANNAUS, 438 U.S. 234 (1978) MASCIO v PUBL EMPLOYEES RET - 1998 FED App. 0328P (6th Cir.) UNITED STATES TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 79 N.Y.2d 39, 588 N.E.2d 51, 580 N.Y.S.2d 153 (1992).

Well, the short answer is, public sector law is much different then private sector law.

Agreed. The case law on this subject backs up the retirees. WP doesn't really have a leg to stand on on this matter. They'll inevitably invest a ton of money is a case with extremely poor prospects for victory.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100606/NEWS02/6060378/1018/Yonkers-barred-from-questioning-firefighters-in-gas-theft-probe

From a criminal investigative standpoint in general (we won't even make this Yonkers specific, it could happen in any agency, anywhere in the country), there is really no need to notify the department administration for the purposes of starting their own internal investigation. In fact, in many criminal investigations, that would be a wholly inappropriate action to take. Agency heads that being their own "internal, parallel" investigations often taint legitimate criminal probes. This case, as with any other, public sector or otherwise, any member would be entitled to invoke their right to remain silent and consult an attorney. I have never handled a public corruption case in which the union, per se, has taken court action to blatantly prevent their membership from being interviewed. Unless, as Izzy points out something blatantly inappropriate occurred by YPD or another city official, I don't believe this injunction will survive a hearing.

Not 'sounds like'. Is! Nothing like making 40 year old technology (with a little upgrading) seem like the newest medical breakthrough.

Well, it's hard to argue that JN got this story out of left-field. County PD spokesman tacitly confirms the reports and the Town Supervisor hardly denies them.

Too bad those of us in unions, (PD, PD, Teachers) don't work hard enough in your eyes. Thanks for your insightful comments and pointing out how lazy we are.

To date, from a few enforcement perspective, or public safety in general for that matter, one of my biggest gripes with Republicans has been their anti-Union stances, but this reaches a new low. It's unconscionable.

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I meant in comparison to other agencies, specifically some with much lower call volumes. Something, I personally, have associated with a level of medic-dependentness.

Exactly. Extremity trauma (such as we have in this example) and abdominal pain, as previously referenced are two totally different animals. That being said, ER MD's increasingly, especially, newer, younger ones, subscribe less and less to that antiquated argument.

Really? Those are the "only" three times ALS would be indicated? Interesting. If that's the case, the medic school I sat through was waaaaayyyyy too long. I could have learned that in 15 minutes.

Well, the only information you can gather from the IA is very limited. Specifically, the victims age, mental status, and reported location of the wound. And all of this is to be taken with a grain of salt, as we often know over the air, information is incorrect or constantly being updated. And why does pain have to be "unbearable" and "excruciating" to warrant some analgesia? Doesn't just "bad" pain deserve treatment? If your a medic who doesn't want to restock, maybe you hold off on analgesia, but the benchmarks you set are not realistic and protocols are often being increasingly interpreted to handle any significant pain, even if not "excruciating"!! Maybe the patient had some co-morbid factors? As usual, the list goes on and on, and as usual, we are limited to the very narrow information that was transmitted over the air. I have worked with Peekskill EMT's for quite sometime, and I would generally not consider them "medic-dependant".

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100225/NEWS02/2250370/Amicone--Budget-cuts-for-Yonkers-will--hurt-a-lot-

Date: 27 APR 10 Time: Approx 5:30 a.m. Location: Originated State Route 9A - Montrose Frequency: Multiple Units Operating: NYSP Cortlandt, Croton PD, Croton FD, Croton EMS Weather Conditions: Rain Description Of Incident: NYSP in pursuit of a File 01/Stolen MV - Began in Montrose, terminated in Croton when the suspect crashed through the gate at the Van Cortlandt Manor historic site and drove into the Croton River. Transported to Phelps Memorial for associated injuries/hypothermia. Writer: INIT915

Not just NICU, all ground transports, since LifeNet took over air operations, WMC handles ground calls, adult and peds.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100415/NEWS02/4150423/Yonkers-budget--4--tax-levy-increase--hundreds-of-layoffs?GID=Zvl6zw/gwtpfzHQpWPSMr4YnpiYckspGpBrN7Ioqe4o%3D

Due to the size of the applicant pools that NYPD and FDNY deals with, the problems you listed most likely will not have as negative an impact as it might in agencies that are able to devote more time and labor to background investigations. It's just the nature of a large organization without enough resources. When a friend of mine told me that he provided his NYPD investigator with names/contact info for his neighbors in Putnam County so they could be contacted by phone, I was floored. All he had to do was pick/choose neighbors he's friendly with.

Not sure who would have to make the "official call", WCPD Units were dispatched right away, simultaneous with EMS, so County PD clearly knew about the incident. It doesn't appear as any outside agency would have had to make the call.

The fact that the keys were/were not in it has nothing to do with a criminal defense, rather, it would show a complacency/carelessness on the part of the EVO who left the vehicle unattended. If anything, the FD would be a party in a civil suit, but nothing to use in defense of the criminal charge. And if you think this case will bring a sentence of life in prison, I suspect you'll be unpleasantly surprised when the case is concluded. We have defendants convicted of intentional murders, or multiple homicides who don't face life in prison. It's unfortunate sometimes.