Paramedic on trial faced previous complaint
Judge will decide whether complaint against Chris Marchant will be allowed at trial of paramedics charged with failing to care for teen gunshot victim
Eight months before he allegedly failed to take a teen’s fatal gunshot wound seriously, a paramedic was admonished for downplaying another patient’s heart episode.
A complaint was filed about Chris Marchant’s handling of the heart patient.
In return, the former paramedic (he has since been fired) filed a shocking incident report to Hamilton Paramedic Service (HPS) berating the complainant and the patient:
“As a paramedic, I take extreme offence to the claim that I am unprofessional and I show lack of knowledge and compassion, this is complete speculation and ignorance from the (complainant) … An unsubstantiated complaint from a bystander untrained in the medical profession calling a trained medical professional uneducated is rude and demeaning … This person’s complaint against my work ethic, education, training and bedside manner is a blatant and disgraceful contradiction of my character.”
Marchant, 32, is currently on trial for failing to provide the necessaries of life to 19-year-old Yosif Al-Hasnawi, who was shot in the abdomen while trying to protect a stranger from harassment.
Marchant’s partner that day, Steve Snively, 55, faces the same charge and has also been fired.
Some of Marchant’s behaviour
with the heart patient, who survived, foreshadows what would happen with Yosif.
That is why Crown Linda Shin is asking Justice Harrison Arrell to allow documents related to the heart patient into evidence. Though the medical circumstances of the two calls are not identical, she argues that Marchant’s “state of mind” is similar.
Marchant’s lawyer, Jeff Manishen, says the judge should not accept the heart patient call as evidence because the situations were too different.
Arrell, who will decide the case without a jury, heard the arguments Monday during a voir dire — a trial within a trial — and will deliver his ruling Tuesday. The trial will move to Zoom on Tuesday due to COVID concerns and restrictions.
Yosif was shot near his downtown mosque on Dec. 2, 2017.
Bystanders who called 911 and spoke with police and paramedics incorrectly surmised Yosif was shot with a BB pellet.
The conjecture is alleged to have formed the basis for Marchant and Snively’s inaction that night.
In fact, the small bullet hole in the dying teen was caused by a .22-calibre hollow-point bullet, which perforated two major blood vessels and caused Yosif to bleed to death.
Marchant and Snively dismissed the frantic pleas from Yosif ’s father and brother, who begged them to hurry and get the teen to hospital. When they finally did transport him, they didn’t go to the Hamilton General Hospital, which is the regional trauma centre, but rather St. Joseph’s Healthcare, which has a psychi
atric emergency department.
Dale King, who fired the bullet that killed Yosif, was acquitted of seconddegree murder. The verdict is under appeal by the Crown.
Monday was the first time the earlier complaint about Marchant was made public.
On Dec. 6, 2016, Marchant was the “attendant paramedic” called along with his driver (not Snively) to a workplace after a man was found unconscious in the lunchroom.
Documents from HPS indicate coworkers performed CPR and the man regained consciousness.
Documents show the man may have briefly been without vital signs.
The patient told Marchant he did not
want to go to hospital. (Yosif did not refuse to go to hospital.) The co-workers were adamant he needed to go.
Marchant said, according to his own incident report: “We are not in the kidnapping business and cannot take him against his will.”
It was only because of the co-workers’ insistence that the man relented and was taken to hospital where he underwent heart surgery and stayed two weeks.
One co-worker filed a complaint about Marchant. Santo Pasqua, HPS commander of quality improvement and regulatory affairs, was tasked with investigating it.
The complaint said the paramedics “were not professional with the patient” and they got into an argument with him over his refusal to go to hospital. It also said paramedics “were reluctant to transport the patient to hospital.”
In March 2017, the HPS investigation was completed and a report filed. It was discussed with Marchant in a meeting on April 13, 2017.
Marchant was found to have an “educational gap.”
“There is definitely a paramedic misunderstanding of the seriousness of this patient,” the report stated.
It also concluded “the paramedics did not make reasonable efforts to convince the patient to go to hospital. Although the option of going to the hospital was provided, there was no evidence of encouraging the patient to do so, nor was there any explanation of the possible negative consequences should the patient not go.”
The report said the errors amounted to “a near-miss” that could have resulted in the patient’s death.
Marchant’s performance on that call did not meet the standard required by the HPS and the Ministry of Health, the report said.
The report also made it clear Marchant was not being disciplined. Instead, he was ordered to read an article from a medical journal, review some policies and procedures, and take a short quiz.
In a final letter to Marchant, Pasqua summarized that he found the paramedic demonstrated “reluctance … to transport the patient to hospital and a misinterpretation of the severity of this patient’s presenting condition.”
An unintentional warning of what was yet to come.