In the case of National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Smith, 368 Ga. App. 18 (2023), the testimony of an Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness was central to evaluating the standard of care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and the adequacy of their training protocols in response to a 911 call.
Background of the Case
The estate of a deceased individual, referred to as Smith, brought a negligence action against National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. (National EMS). The suit alleged that EMS personnel failed to take adequate steps to locate and assist Smith during a critical medical event, despite a 911 call requesting emergency care.
According to the complaint, law enforcement was first dispatched to the scene and, after a brief search, advised National EMS that they could cancel their response. The EMS team complied and never arrived at Smith’s location. Smith later died, and his estate argued that EMS personnel had a duty to investigate further or to continue their response despite the cancellation by law enforcement.
Role of the Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness
To support the estate’s claims, the plaintiffs retained James McCans, a professional with expertise in emergency communications systems, EMS procedures, and public safety training. As an Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness, McCans provided analysis on:
-
EMS Protocols: Whether National EMS followed accepted industry standards for emergency response when they canceled the dispatch based on law enforcement input.
-
Training and Hiring Practices: If National EMS adequately trained and supervised its employees in line with national best practices and internal protocols.
-
Causation and Duty of Care: Whether National EMS breached its duty and if that breach contributed to Smith’s death.
McCans asserted that National EMS should not have canceled the call solely based on a third party’s report (in this case, law enforcement), and instead had an independent duty to attempt contact with the patient or confirm that no care was needed.
Court Proceedings and Findings
National EMS moved to exclude McCans’ expert testimony, arguing that his conclusions were not grounded in reliable methodology and that he lacked familiarity with National EMS’s specific protocols. The trial court denied the motion, allowing McCans’ opinions to be presented.
However, on appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that McCans’ testimony did not meet the reliability standards required under Georgia’s version of the Daubert rule for expert admissibility. The court found that McCans failed to demonstrate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusions and that he did not adequately account for National EMS’s established procedures or applicable state regulations.
As a result, the appellate court ruled that McCans’ testimony should have been excluded and entered summary judgment in favor of National EMS on the negligence claims.
Legal Significance
This case is significant for its treatment of expert witness standards in emergency services litigation. It reinforces that expert testimony must be not only relevant but also methodologically sound and factually specific to the entity and protocols at issue. Merely having generalized expertise in EMS operations is insufficient if the expert cannot connect that knowledge directly to the facts of the case or the practices of the defendant organization.
For emergency service providers, the ruling is a reminder of the importance of documenting internal procedures and training standards and being able to clearly demonstrate compliance when challenged.
Conclusion
National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Smith illustrates both the importance and the limitations of expert testimony in negligence cases involving EMS and 911 services. While the Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness provided crucial insights into industry practices, the case ultimately turned on whether the testimony met strict evidentiary standards. The outcome highlights the court’s responsibility to ensure that expert opinions are reliable, well-supported, and closely tied to the specific practices in question.