Ambulance company members Victor Lima and Iona Lyons ceased resuscitation efforts and covered Crandall with a blanket in violation of state guidelines. A few minutes later a police officer noticed that Crandall was still alive and he was rushed to the hospital. Crandall then sued Lima, Lyons and the ambulance company, charging that he suffered brain damage from lack of oxygen because of their actions. The state placed the two emergency medical technicians on one-year probation and ordered them to undergo retraining.

Peter Clark, the Bridgeport attorney representing the ambulance company, has argued in a motion that a judge should dismiss Crandall's allegation of gross negligence against Lima, Lyons and the ambulance company because gross negligence is not recognized by Connecticut law. And even if it did, he said Crandall's allegation does not rise to the level needed to prove that his clients were “wholly indifferent to the consequences of their actions,” which is needed for a claim of gross negligence. He added the allegations do not support “any claim of an extreme departure from ordinary care,” even though state guidelines clearly required Lima and Lyons to continue resuscitation efforts until told by a doctor to stop or paramedics took over, neither of which occurred in this case.

Clark also argued in his motion that Lima, Lyons and the ambulance company are immune from a claim of ordinary negligence because they are protected by the state's Good Samaritan law. It states in part that a firefighter, police officer or emergency medical personnel shall not be liable for any injuries that result from an act or omissions by the person rendering first aid, which may constitute ordinary negligence.

Crandall's attorney Stephen Reck of North Stonington filed an objection to the motion that points out that a gross negligence claim is allowed under the Good Samaritan law.

The law states that the immunity “does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, willful or wanton negligence.”

He also argued that the Good Samaritan statute should not apply because the EMTs did not happen by chance upon them emergency but were acting in the “ordinary course of such person's employment or practice.”

He said the law was not designed to apply to town EMTs who regularly respond to emergencies but for medical providers who happen upon an emergency and gratuitously render assistance.

In that case, he said Lima and Lyons should be open to a claim of negligence.

In his motion, Reck said that Lima and Lyons disregarded information from a police dispatcher and witnesses that Crandall had been stuck by lightning and “jumped to the conclusion” that he had been dead for hours and was not the victim of a lighting strike.

Reck has asked a New London Superior Court judge to hear oral arguments on the issue.