UIHC reframes termination for paramedic who used ‘painful stimulation on a patient’

IOWA CITY — In reframing its separation from one paramedic in 2024, the University of Iowa has agreed to a settlement changing his termination to a “voluntary resignation” after an administrative law judge found the employee did not “willfully or wantonly” disregard UI standards of behavior.

The agreement resolves a grievance former UI paramedic Jesse Bevins filed in March 2024, when he was terminated for “using painful stimulation on a patient exhibiting seizure-like activity in violation of the employer’s seizure precaution policy,” according to the judge’s decision in May 2024 to reverse Bevins’ unemployment insurance denial — in part because before his firing he “had never received any warnings or discipline for similar conduct and he did not believe his job was in jeopardy.”

“The weight of the evidence suggests that (Bevins’) decision to apply painful stimulation to the patient was a mistake arising from a misunderstanding of the seizure precaution policy, inadvertence, or ordinary negligence,” the judge wrote. “While carelessness can result in disqualification, it must be of such degree of recurrence as to demonstrate substantial disregard for the employer’s interests.

“The claimant’s conduct in this instance does not meet that standard.”

According to the settlement, the university has agreed to change his employment history to a voluntary resignation — rather than a termination. But, unlike some settlements, it does not release the university from future lawsuits.

“No promises for any other or future consideration have been made by anyone,” according to the agreement. “The terms of this settlement agreement are considered by the parties to pertain only to the specific facts involved in this matter. Neither party shall rely on this agreement or cite the same as precedent in any grievance, arbitration, litigation, or other proceeding in the future.”

‘Assaulted her in the hallway’

According to the administrative law judge’s order affording Bevins’ unemployment insurance benefits, the incident in question occurred Feb. 27, 2024 when a nurse asked Bevins to take a patient from the emergency room to imaging for an MRI.

The nurse told Bevins the patient was being evaluated for seizure-like activity, and Bevins then introduced himself and helped her into a wheelchair. Shortly after leaving the ER, the patient began twitching her head and hands and Bevins checked her vitals.

Although she did not appear in distress, the patient didn’t respond when Bevins said her name, according to the judge’s ruling.

“Based on the (Bevins’) experience, when individuals are unresponsive, the next step in patient care is to assess the patient’s level of consciousness by administering some form of physical contact to try to elicit a response,” according to the ruling. “(Bevins) generally used a pressure point on the neck to try to elicit responses from patients.”

In this case, he applied pressure to a point on the patient’s neck and she moaned — confirming for Bevins that she was conscious. Proceeding, Bevins said the patient’s name again before reaching the imaging department — and she again did not respond, according to the judge.

When he checked her vitals, she didn’t react — and still didn’t respond to her name. So he applied pressure to her neck again, eliciting a loud response from the patient, who asked, “What are you doing!?” according to the ruling.

As Bevins tried to remove the patient’s blood pressure monitor, she ripped away her arm — causing the monitor to fall to the ground. Bevins responded by saying, “I’m not going to tolerate this aggressive behavior,” according to the ruling.

Around that time, the MRI technician approached and the patient said she didn’t want to be alone with Bevins. So the technician helped take the patient back to the ER, where she told her nurse Bevins had “assaulted her in the hallway by pressing a pressure point on her neck.”

She threatened to file a police report, and the nurse also shared the patient’s compliant with human resources — which launched an internal investigation. HR determined that “while pressure points can sometimes be used to assess consciousness in unresponsive individuals, the employer’s seizure precaution policy does not allow for the use of painful stimulation for individuals experiencing seizure-like activity.”

The university thus found no valid medical purpose for Bevins to have applied painful stimulation to the patient and fired him.

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com