Law Officer Fired for Suing After Rescue

[Lisa Denton]

Lots of bizarre news lately, I saw this one and thought I would pass it along. I am sure there HAS TO BE MORE to it than this itty bitty byline type news story I seen.

Apparently this police officer arrived at this families home whose son almost drowned, and there was some water on the floor. The son survived with severe brain damage.

This veteran decorated police officer was suing the family because there was water on the floor and she slipped.

Well, apparently she dropped her lawsuit and has been fired from that police dept., but I would have liked to see the judges face when that one went to court.

Hell, the family should sue her, maybe if the pig hadn't fallen down thier son wouldn't be brain damaged.

Here it is, ponder, discuss, cuss, I don't care.

**********************************************************
Law Officer Fired for Suing After Rescue
Published: 12/5/07, 11:46 PM EDT

CASSELBERRY, Fla. (AP) - A police officer has been fired for suing a family after she slipped and fell in their home while trying to rescue a 1-year-old boy who nearly drowned, authorities said.

Police Chief John Pavlis fired Sgt. Andrea Eichhorn on Tuesday, saying the lawsuit brought public ridicule to the department and damaged its reputation. Eichhorn, a 12-year veteran, can appeal.

She dropped her negligence lawsuit in October. It claimed there was water on the floor at Joey Cosmillo's home on Jan. 9 when police arrived to try to resuscitate the boy, who had fallen into the family's swimming pool. Eichhorn claimed she broke her knee and missed two months of work after she slid on the wet floor.

The boy suffered brain damage and can no longer walk, talk or swallow. He lives in a nursing home and eats and breathes through tubes.

Eichhorn's personnel file includes numerous commendations. She has worked as a hostage negotiator and prostitution decoy, and even wrestled razors away from a suicidal person.

********************************************************

 

[sr71plt]

Hell, the family should sue her, maybe if the pig hadn't fallen down thier son wouldn't be brain damaged.

I find this sentence more bizarre than the news article.

 

[Katyusha]

She dropped her negligence lawsuit in October. It claimed there was water on the floor at Joey Cosmillo's home on Jan. 9 when police arrived to try to resuscitate the boy, who had fallen into the family's swimming pool. Eichhorn claimed she broke her knee and missed two months of work after she slid on the wet floor.

On the one hand I can see her point...water on the floor is negligence on the part of the homeowner...but...

The boy suffered brain damage and can no longer walk, talk or swallow. He lives in a nursing home and eats and breathes through tubes.

...on the other hand, hasn't this family been through enough already? I've never been a fan of suing a homeowner for something like this anyway as it is, but this is a family whose son will never have a normal life as it is. Couldn't the officer have just left well enough alone?

 

[3113]

On the one hand I can see her point...water on the floor is negligence on the part of the homeowner...but...

But one presumes the water was from the family fishing out the kid, rushing hi inside, trying to help him while waiting for the police to arrive. A family fretting over their dying son isn't going to notice or take the time to mop up some water from that almost drowning.

Hardly the same as "oops, spilled some water, better mop it up or someone might get hurt."

 

[matriarch]

But one presumes the water was from the family fishing out the kid, rushing hi inside, trying to help him while waiting for the police to arrive. A family fretting over their dying son isn't going to notice or take the time to mop up some water from that almost drowning.

Hardly the same as "oops, spilled some water, better mop it up or someone might get hurt."

Just what I thought..........but one never knows.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder what her problem was. Cops get hurt on duty all the time. Usually, they get full pay while they are off, or some kind of office duty.

 

[Lisa Denton]

sr71plt you are on my ignore list because I find you rude and obnoxious, so I don't see your insults, just that you posted.

There are millions of peoples in the world, many who do not have you on ignore, and they all need insulting, spend your time wisely.

 

[Lisa Denton]

On the one hand I can see her point...water on the floor is negligence on the part of the homeowner...but...



...on the other hand, hasn't this family been through enough already? I've never been a fan of suing a homeowner for something like this anyway as it is, but this is a family whose son will never have a normal life as it is. Couldn't the officer have just left well enough alone?

Yes, I am sure there was some blood-sucking lawyer who was willing to take the case, but you would expect a lil water on the floor if your son was drowning. I don't think water on the floor is negligence in a drowning situation.

The police officer should have been paid for time off, and have had all her medical bills paid by the police insurance. I can only assume that at the same moment as this families son was brain damaged, this officer wanted them to pay her for her pain and suffering.

I understand a lot of te lawsuits, some considered "frivolous" should even be allowed, but to take away a judge and courts time to tell her to please, please, leave this poor people alone is going to far. Some "frivolous" lawsuits, when decided to be without merit, and bordering on stupidity and greed, should not only the plaintiff not get any gigabillions of dollars, the plaintiff and the attorney should have to pay a fine to cover the expense, split equally of course for the plaintiffs stupidity and the attorney's greed.

That way the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

JMO

 

[BradBigBrain]

Most states do not allow rescue workers to sue if they are hurt on the job rescuing someone. It's called the "Fireman's Law". I don't know if FL has that law or not.... but it really shouldn't have mattered. She shouldn't have sued.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Most states do not allow rescue workers to sue if they are hurt on the job rescuing someone. It's called the "Fireman's Law". I don't know if FL has that law or not.... but it really shouldn't have mattered. She shouldn't have sued.

Yes, I had heard of that and forgot what it was called.

I am sure firepeople, policepeople, and ambulance peoples insurance charges their dept. big bucks for insurance. So they should handle everything, I wonder what the hell she was wanting, prolly 11957375 billion dollars.

 

[Pure]

i'm not sure why no posters have mentioned this, but there is an obvious explanation, a possible one.

the officers employer may have given her very little compensation for the injury and the time off.

so she's suing for a supplement. agreed, it's hard on the family, but presumably would be taken care of by their insurance co. and it would be settled out of court.

generally, i agree with Brad, that a rescue worker should not be able to sue for common hazards. i'd leave the door open a tiny crack where there is, for instance, a building with known faulty wiring, that the owner did not fix, and a fireman gets electrocuted coming through the front door.

it might be better however, if the fire dept sued (in this hypothetical example), i.e. stood behind the victim's (the fireman's) family.

ADDED:

This blog prints lots of dirt about Andrea. Her sexual preferences! The suggestion is that department politics played a role, and that she was maybe going to be fired for something else. I'm not sure if it's true.

but the article did contain a few lines supporting my theory:

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2007/12/andrea-eichhorn-fired.html

Eichhorn sued because she was afraid she might wind up disabled, the city's insurer might reject her claims or that she would become a burden to her family, she told the department.

 

[BradBigBrain]

i'm not sure why no posters have mentioned this, but there is an obvious explanation, a possible one.

the officers employer may have given her very little compensation for the injury and the time off.

so she's suing for a supplement. agreed, it's hard on the family, but presumably would be taken care of by their insurance co. and it would be settled out of court.

generally, i agree with Brad, that a rescue worker should not be able to sue for common hazards. i'd leave the door open a tiny crack where there is, for instance, a building with known faulty wiring, that the owner did not fix, and a fireman gets electrocuted coming through the front door.

it might be better however, if the fire dept sued (in this hypothetical example), i.e. stood behind the victim's (the fireman's) family.

I agree, but this was not that kind of thing. She slipped and fell on the side of the pool and hurt her knee. It would be reasonable for a rescuer to find water near the side of the pool when on call for a drowning. And she probably should have taken care. And since it's Florida, it would also be reasonable to assume that she would run into a situation like this.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure
i'm not sure why no posters have mentioned this, but there is an obvious explanation, a possible one.

the officers employer may have given her very little compensation for the injury and the time off.

so she's suing for a supplement. agreed, it's hard on the family, but presumably would be taken care of by their insurance co. and it would be settled out of court.

generally, i agree with Brad, that a rescue worker should not be able to sue for common hazards. i'd leave the door open a tiny crack where there is, for instance, a building with known faulty wiring, that the owner did not fix, and a fireman gets electrocuted coming through the front door.

it might be better however, if the fire dept sued (in this hypothetical example), i.e. stood behind the victim's (the fireman's) family.

I agree, but this was not that kind of thing. She slipped and fell on the side of the pool and hurt her knee. It would be reasonable for a rescuer to find water near the side of the pool when on call for a drowning. And she probably should have taken care. And since it's Florida, it would also be reasonable to assume that she would run into a situation like this.

I agree also, but this was water on the floor, something to be expected in a situation like this one. To quote Super Chicken: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it." She should receive full pay while she is off duty, but nothing else.

In the case of outrageous lawsuits like this one, I wish there could be some way to punish the greedy shysters who bring them. I realize, it's the 99% who give thre 1% a bad name but, even so. something ought to be done. Maybe force the shyster to pay all the court costs and the defendant's expenses.

 

[Liar]

Doesn't police officers, if any, have a job where one might expect they'd be pretty observant of where the hell they're stepping?

 

[sr71plt]

sr71plt you are on my ignore list because I find you rude and obnoxious, so I don't see your insults, just that you posted.

There are millions of peoples in the world, many who do not have you on ignore, and they all need insulting, spend your time wisely.

It's a real scream for posters claiming someone is on their ignore list and then reading and responding to what they post.

I didn't respond to your really bizarre sentence because of who you are--but because of what you said. Calling cops pigs and suggesting that one who responds to a distress call is to blame because they became injured themselves before they could help the injured. The lawsuit story aside, your statement is just downright bizarre (and naive and nasty--and really, really ignorant).

 

[Katyusha]

But one presumes the water was from the family fishing out the kid, rushing hi inside, trying to help him while waiting for the police to arrive. A family fretting over their dying son isn't going to notice or take the time to mop up some water from that almost drowning.

Hardly the same as "oops, spilled some water, better mop it up or someone might get hurt."

Exactly. Just goes to show you that it doesn't matter who someone is, there are people everywhere just looking for any reason they can think of to sue someone.

 

[Lisa Denton]

i'm not sure why no posters have mentioned this, but there is an obvious explanation, a possible one.

the officers employer may have given her very little compensation for the injury and the time off.

so she's suing for a supplement. agreed, it's hard on the family, but presumably would be taken care of by their insurance co. and it would be settled out of court.

generally, i agree with Brad, that a rescue worker should not be able to sue for common hazards. i'd leave the door open a tiny crack where there is, for instance, a building with known faulty wiring, that the owner did not fix, and a fireman gets electrocuted coming through the front door.

it might be better however, if the fire dept sued (in this hypothetical example), i.e. stood behind the victim's (the fireman's) family.Yes

ADDED:

This blog prints lots of dirt about Andrea. Her sexual preferences! The suggestion is that department politics played a role, and that she was maybe going to be fired for something else. I'm not sure if it's true.

but the article did contain a few lines supporting my theory:

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2007/12/andrea-eichhorn-fired.html

Eichhorn sued because she was afraid she might wind up disabled, the city's insurer might reject her claims or that she would become a burden to her family, she told the department.

Yes Pure, I looked, but this paragraph you quoted at the end of your post?

The following paragraph reads:
"She and her attorney, David Heil, had tried for months to get money from the Cosmillos, but the family had ignored her claim, so on Oct. 1 she filed suit in state circuit court in Sanford, accusing the family of negligence."

Which then sounds like crap.

I agree that there may have been other reasons she was fired, yes, maybe her sexual preferences, like the back seat of a patrol car, or her forging other officers names. Everything I saw made it seem worse, not better.


The bottom line is, had the mother of this half-drowned baby stopped to mop up water on the floor I would agree she might be negligent, but I would be agreeing with Child Protective Services, not some moneyhungry bloodsucking cop and lawyer trying to sue her for NOT stopping to mop up the water. There are very, very few police officers who should be referred to as pigs, she is one.

Again, JMO

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Workman's Compensation takes care of on the job injuries. But what I read was she wanted compensation for pain & suffering, plus the actual med bills and time off from work. Workman's Comp doesnt pay for pain & suffering.

She changed her story as the suit evolved.

 

[emap]

According to the link Pure was kind enough to post, she was afraid she would not get workman's comp. Which means she knew her ass was being fired soon.

Her being promoted to sergeant while dating the deputy commisioner may have helped and may not. Dating a married guy she later marries, having a newborn in his house or not says more about falling for him and vice versa than being bad. Well OK doesn't say much for either in he was still married apparently when they started dating, but well people being people not surprising.

Neither of those though are reasons to fire a police officer. Signing someone elses name for an off duty payed job is at most getting a don't do that and an unpayed day off if it is not the first time. Still not a reason to fire a police officer. There is another reason or three that they have not said. May or may not come out, though probably won't since not mentioned says probably something that can be paid for the entire department.

 

[Lisa Denton]

According to the link Pure was kind enough to post, she was afraid she would not get workman's comp. Which means she knew her ass was being fired soon.

Her being promoted to sergeant while dating the deputy commisioner may have helped and may not. Dating a married guy she later marries, having a newborn in his house or not says more about falling for him and vice versa than being bad. Well OK doesn't say much for either in he was still married apparently when they started dating, but well people being people not surprising.

Neither of those though are reasons to fire a police officer. Signing someone elses name for an off duty payed job is at most getting a don't do that and an unpayed day off if it is not the first time. Still not a reason to fire a police officer. There is another reason or three that they have not said. May or may not come out, though probably won't since not mentioned says probably something that can be paid for the entire department.

The off duty job was apparently dept. approved, like a bank or something. They paid cash and required an officers signature for tax purposes, meaning the other officers could try explaining to the IRS what and when they worked if they didn't want to pay taxes on the income. Might be why it says she wasn't well-liked in the department.

It doesn't say whether the deputy chief who promoted her while they were dating was the same man she later married, or the man who she began a relationship with while they were both married to others, or the officer she was caught having sex with in the back of her patrol car. He might have been the assisting officer she accidentally handcuffed while trying to subdue a suspect but I doubt it.

She may have knew she was going to be fired but that is still not a good reason to try to get money by fucking up the family of a brain damaged child whom she was supposed to be rescuing from a drowning.

If she wasn't fired for that alone who on earth in that city would call the police for anything.

There are many good police officers, in my opinion this officer was the bad apple, the really bad apple.

 

[emap]

I would say probably the more obvious bad apple.

Besides, we are talking about a job that is primarily men so her not being liked could be as simple as not giving blowjobs to everyone who asks. Not saying she was a good cop, just saying not well liked isn't a good indication of ability.

Not to mention, handcuffing the fellow cop in a struggle with someone is not hard to do, unless she cuffed him fully and let the bad guy away all those twisting bodies makes putting something where it is supposed to be really really hard. Unless say one of the guys was light skinned and the other dark.

I group wrastled often as a kid, it's hard to grab what you want to grab doing that. Can't tell you how many tries I grabbed his crotch instead of a hand or leg.

Did make for alot of laughs then and later came in pretty handy.