A teen died from an allergic reaction. Montreal's paramedic service now owes his

The family of a young Innu man who died following an allergic reaction is entitled to nearly $450,000 after a Quebec Superior Court judge found that ambulance technicians acted wrongfully. 

Nutin McFarland, 18, died in October 2017. 

He had just moved from Maliotenam near Sept-Îles, Que., to attend Dawson College in Montreal. 

On Oct. 29, 2017, he went into anaphylactic shock and died after he unknowingly ate a tuna sandwich at his girlfriend’s apartment which contained peanuts — to which he was allergic. 

In 2020, the family filed a claim with the court alleging negligence on the part of Urgences-santé and its employees, namely the ambulance technicians.

In his ruling at the end of August, Justice Jeffrey Edwards said ambulance workers called to the scene failed to follow intervention protocol. 

Workers did not immediately transport McFarland to the hospital — despite him being 700 metres away. Due to the faults of the ambulance technicians and Urgences-santé, McFarland’s care by hospital staff was further delayed, said the judge. 

He found that Urgences-santé’s failure to follow intervention protocols, make a prompt departure, provide urgent transport and send advance notice to the hospital was the direct cause of the young man’s death.

“If the technicians had followed protocol, Nutin would have arrived at the Verdun hospital no later than 7:31 p.m.,” wrote Edwards. 

Instead, the young man arrived 19 minutes later, at which point his condition had severely deteriorated and he was reportedly “blueish.”

“[The] family members are devastated. Their dreams, plans, and hopes for their future with Nutin have been shattered,” wrote Edwards. 

‘I’m dying,’ teen said before transport to hospital

According to the judgment, the ambulance called to the scene arrived at 7:22 p.m., minutes after firefighters had arrived and administered an EpiPen to McFarland.  

But even before the workers arrived on the scene, Edwards says it was made clear to the technicians that the situation was classified as “urgent” — one that requires immediate medical intervention and threatens the life of an individual.

Despite this urgency, workers still had not left for the hospital by 7:45 p.m., at which point McFarland’s respiratory rate was elevated, his oxygen level dropped and his sensation of not being able to breathe skyrocketed. 

He reportedly said, “I’m dying … It’s worse, it’s worse,” Edwards wrote. 

The justice said “surprisingly and in violation of the applicable intervention protocols,” the ambulance technicians remained on site and did not leave for the hospital in a timely manner. Edwards said the ambulance finally left at 7:47 p.m.

It was only at 7:53 p.m. that hospital staff could take charge of McFarland. 

But according to the judgment, staff were reportedly not given advance notice and the hospital’s trauma team was not ready to receive him.

About 10 minutes later, the 18-year-old went into cardiac arrest and never regained consciousness. Subsequent tests confirmed brain damage and brain death. 

‘Highly likely’ teen would’ve survived if hospitalized faster

One of the first responders who evaluated the young man while still at the apartment reportedly observed that McFarland was not experiencing respiratory distress. 

But Dr. Robert Foxford, an emergency physician who was consulted for the ruling, says there were symptoms of distress.

In his report, included in Edwards’s ruling, Foxford says that protocol for Urgences-santé “clearly states” once epinephrine has been administered, urgent transport to the hospital is indicated.

“Yet tragically, and for no explainable reason, this does not happen,” he wrote in the report. “Rapid advanced medical care, that was only one minute away, is what Mr. McFarland needed.”

He concluded that Urgences-santé failed to follow their own protocol and that if paramedics urgently transported McFarland, “it is highly likely that he would have survived.” 

In an emailed statement, Urgences-santé said it has taken note of the judgment rendered in the McFarland case. 

“The case is currently under analysis by our legal services,” it said, adding that the service will not comment further at this time.