24/12 - Maryland Courts

concerns whether one, or both, of these statutes necessarily relieves a commercial ambulance
company of liability for the allegedly negligent actions of one of its employees in providing
assistance to a patient when an emergency arose while the employee was in training. We
hold that they do not.
Background
The Transport of Bryson Murray
On November 15, 2007, Respondent Bryson Murray, 2 a minor who was suffering
from congestion and was having trouble breathing, was taken to Easton Memorial Hospital
(“Easton Memorial”) in Talbot County. 3
At the hospital he was fitted with an endotracheal
breathing tube. Because Easton Memorial was not equipped to handle intubated children,
hospital officials sought to transfer him to the pediatric intensive care unit at the Medical
Center of the University of Maryland Medical System (“UMMS”) in Baltimore.
UMMS arranged for PHI Air Medical to carry out the transport by helicopter. Present
on the helicopter was a flight paramedic team that included a UMMS pediatric intensive-care
nurse, a PHI flight paramedic, and a PHI flight nurse. Also present was Chris Barbour, 4 a
2 We will refer to Bryson Murray in this opinion by his first name to distinguish him
from his mother, Karen Murray, who is also a Respondent in this case. We will refer to them
collectively as “the Murrays.”
3 This background is drawn from the allegations in the complaint that initiated this
action, as well as other undisputed facts established in the record.
4 The complaint spells the last name as “Barber.” In their briefs, the parties have
consistently spelled the name as “Barbour,” which we presume to be the correct spelling.
2