Tentative settlement reached in death of Hazelwood man during 2010 blizzard
Pittsburgh and Allegheny County have agreed to a $280,000 settlement with the family of a Hazelwood man who died after ambulances failed to reach him during the 2010 blizzard.
Curtis Mitchell, 50, an unemployed laborer, died Feb. 7, 2010, of heart disease. The city and county revamped their emergency system in the wake of his death.
Mitchell's two children sued the city and county, seeking more than $500,000. Pending approval from city council, Pittsburgh would pay them $195,000 and the county would pay them $85,000, according to Joanna Doven, spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. City Council introduced legislation on Monday to approve the city's portion. A vote could come next week.
Mitchell and his girlfriend, Sharon Edge, called 911 10 times Feb. 6-7, 2010, but city paramedics were unable to reach their Chaplain Way home because of snow.
County dispatchers urged Mitchell to walk across the Elizabeth Street Bridge to waiting ambulances, but extreme abdominal pain prevented him from doing so. Ambulance crew chief Josie Dimon, who was fired, was recorded as saying she wasn't “waiting all day” for Mitchell and “this ain't no cab service.” An arbitrator reinstated her.
City Public Safety Director Michael Huss criticized the paramedics, saying they should have walked to Mitchell's home.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.