Danielle's Law and Rescue 911

Danielle Gruskowski was a middle-aged old woman with a diagnosis of Rett’s Syndrome, who died tragically on November 5, 2002. Staff at her Edison, New Jersey group home failed to call 911 in response to a fever she had developed the previous evening. By the time staff transported her to a doctor the following morning, Danielle could not be revived. Sadly, she was pronounced dead two hours later at a local hospital. Lawmakers in New Jersey believe they can now save the lives of more disabled people like Danielle who entrust the totality of their care in others. Hence forth, Danielle’s Law became New Jersey law in 2003. Making State laws on employees who take care of human beings is complex and it will never be declared an exact science. Too often there exists extenuating circumstances that policy cannot foresee let alone outline the gray areas in training protocols. Danielle’s Law may fit this bill.

If other states in the country follow suit with similar laws, I sure hope they do not adopt New Jersey’s penalty phase. It imposes punitive fines on individuals who fail to call 911 or dillydally in making a SOS call in a life threatening emergency. The fact that we even need a law to govern human services employees to call 911 is an apocalyptic advertisement and distress signal in and of itself. People who take care of human beings should know to call 911 in a real emergency. In the rarest of incidents, if a rogue staff member fails to call 911 the gross negligence should result in termination of employment as a practical repercussion.

30:6D-5.4 Danielle’s Law violations, penalties: “A member of the staff at a facility for persons with developmental disabilities or a facility for persons with traumatic brain injury or a member of the staff at a public or private agency who violates the provisions of section 3 of this act shall be liable to a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first offense, $10,000 for the second offense, and $25,000 for the third and each subsequent offense, to be sued for and collected in a summary proceeding by the commissioner pursuant to the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).”

You read it correctly. Danielle’s Law imposes a first time offender a whopping fine of $5000. With no intended disrespect to the Gruskowski family who lost their daughter, caring people save human lives for free and they do not want to be robbed for what might be an error in judgment. I am sensitive to the fact that this is a safeguard designed to save lives and protect the disadvantaged but the penalty is not in touch with the low paying salaries of those providing care. Five thousand dollars is to be taken out of their pocket and put into the State Treasury! Conscientious workers telephone 911 for free. If there is indeed a place for Danielle’s Law in this world, the penalty phase could be reworked and downgraded to be more in balance with the circumstance. A direct care worker earning $20,000 a year would call 911 knowing there was a $100 fine. But impose the consequence of taking 1/4 of their net annual salary over what could be a quasi judgment call regarding a human being is punishment that may not fit the crime. A second offense garners a subsequent $10,000 fine. Do we really need a second offense category in this law or a $25,000 third offense by the same employee? Its tiered layout suggests an exaggeration of isolated incidents as in the unfortunate case of Danielle Gruskowski. Does the law imply that the habitual offender is still being paid to care for the disabled after THREE incidents of failure to dial 911 in a life threatening emergency? I argue that another vocation is needed after the first offense. Employment elsewhere is the life saving measure for these disabled clients not more fines.

If direct care staff follow the letter of the law the 911 system could be flooded for the sake of saving lives and livelihood. I worry that this will actually have a reverse effect and cost the lives of others who might have needed that ambulance ride when one wasn’t available. Every petit mal seizure client who boards an ambulance four times a week is certainly going to test the patience of ambulance staff and negatively effect the client.

This law could withstand a practical amendment and it would not detract from its original intent. In addition to downgrading the penalties, the fines should be earmarked for return to this disenfranchised population. For all of the levied fines, I support rewarding the employees who excel at their caregiving jobs. Maybe we shouldn’t just kill the messenger in the blame game and recognize the heroism of the vast majority, the direct care workers who take fine care of human beings. If a reward system is not palatable to the public, how about we use the collected revenue to fund new group homes and supervised apartments for the developmentally disabled population. The waiting list for residential placement has ballooned to over 3,000 developmentally disabled people stuck in a waiting game. Any money this law generates should be returned to the disabled population and not used for any other purpose. Its return could only make the Danielle in Danielle’s Law more humane.

The day after I attended mandatory Danielle’s Law training by my employer, I found myself taking a leisurely stroll at a craft show. I wound up in front of a parked ambulance used for emergencies. I peeked my head inside the back of the idle vehicle only to find two EMT’s artistically practicing their bandaging skills among the hideaway compartments beaming of lifesaving equipment.

“Can either of you gentlemen tell me what Danielle’s Law means to you?” asked the ornery reporter in me.

"Who is Danielle?” one asked quizzically.

“I never heard of Danielle’s Law. What is it?” the other exclaimed two years after it became a law.

For what it is worth, I forwarded a letter to my Senator proposing an addendum to Danielle’s Law.