AEDs MIA

[ERDoc]

Defib, sorry about the short answer. I'd like to think that you would be protected from a lawsuit, I'd also like to think that if it ever saw a jury they would use some common sense and say the suit is ridiculous but my faith in juries is very low. The judicial system has become a lottery and there are some people that like to play as often as they can. In an ideal world, the suit would never see the light of day. Even if you are cleared by a jury you still have to go through the expense of a trial (lawyer fees, lost time from work/family, etc) so even if you win, you have still lost. I've heard of cases (don't have any documentation to support it but I haven't really looked) of health care providers on airplanes who have been sued for helping out in-flight. They argued that because they were acting as good Samaritans, they were exempt. However, the airline had upgraded them to first class, given them free tickets for their next flight, given them free drinks so they were paid for their service and could be sued.

[Richard B the EMT]

Could someone with better Medical/Legal expertise please advise if "Good Sam" is:

1) along the lines of doing the deed "Without expectation of reimbursement",

2) considered null and void if a third party (airline, tourbus company, family and/or friends of a victim), without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good Sam" provider,

3) considered null and void if the victim, without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good sam" provider,

4) considered null and void if the "Good Sam" decides to accept the offer of product and/or service

?

[Just Plain Ruff]

ERDoc is right, on both accounts. But, in the grand scheme, you'd most likely fall under a Good Samaritan law (you aren't on duty and therefore don't have a duty to act). You are using equipment in good faith as per your training and you did not intend any harm. And, since the dude(ette) is already dead, you didn't make the situation any worse.

**disclaimer is that this has occurred in a state that honors the Good Samaritan Law.

But seriously here, if you as a responder can't read the AED which I believe has the big words on it which are Trainer or the patches have training patches on them then maybe we should be thinking of another career where reading is not a requirement.

If my memory serves me correctly, the training AED's we've had have all had the words Trainer on them. Maybe other places do not have those words on them.

[DFIB]

Defib, sorry about the short answer. I'd like to think that you would be protected from a lawsuit, I'd also like to think that if it ever saw a jury they would use some common sense and say the suit is ridiculous but my faith in juries is very low. The judicial system has become a lottery and there are some people that like to play as often as they can. In an ideal world, the suit would never see the light of day. Even if you are cleared by a jury you still have to go through the expense of a trial (lawyer fees, lost time from work/family, etc) so even if you win, you have still lost. I've heard of cases (don't have any documentation to support it but I haven't really looked) of health care providers on airplanes who have been sued for helping out in-flight. They argued that because they were acting as good Samaritans, they were exempt. However, the airline had upgraded them to first class, given them free tickets for their next flight, given them free drinks so they were paid for their service and could be sued.

Thanks Doc, I thought the answer was fine. Although it was kind of a legal question you shared a little cardio instruction. The part that jumped out to me was the clarification between using AED's in AMI and using one on VT/VF. Once again you have given me a trail to follow toward studying areas that are beyond my scope of practice but someday will not be.

It is shameful that people would attempt to lucre at the expense of someone that in good faith possibly saved their life. If I ever help someone on the plane I will remember not to take the upgrade! I suppose that the compensation idea could have far reaching implications toward any type of gratification including restaurants and other businesses as well. It would stink for a lawsuit to proceed because the Samaritan took a free round of golf or cup of coffee.

I would think that the source and reason of the gratification would be a key factor in the defense. The airline, restaurant or golf course could offer a gift not because you rendered aid to the patient but because you saved them the trouble and paperwork of having a stiff on their floor. Kind of like waste removal.

[WolfmanHarris]

I've always felt that relying on the words "TRAINER" in big and "Not for Patient Use" in small on an exactly the same shape/colour case is an unecessary risk. There would be no detriment to quality training for the AED trainer and it's case and accessories to be an entirely different colour (say hot pink). For example, the volunteer first response agency I recently taught had managed to place a Medtronic CR+ trainer in the extra case for their actual CR+. Given their response model there is little chance of them getting confused by a team member, but the point is well taken; this is a possible room for error.

Just like we attempt to identify issues that set us up for failure in our practice (i.e. similarly packaged medication, commonly confused words) we should be ensuring training, or out of service equipment cannot be confused for front line equipment.

If I can go off on a tangent with regards to public access AED's, I think the time has come to determine some best practices and consensus for design and operation of public access AED's. In teaching to the public I have utilized probably a half dozen different AED designs and while all were easy to use, I can certainly see how their small difference would confound a lay person on their first cardiac arrest. It reminds me of the past issues with ventilator errors that were corrected with standardization (or so I have read anyways).

[Just Plain Ruff]

Could someone with better Medical/Legal expertise please advise if "Good Sam" is:

1) along the lines of doing the deed "Without expectation of reimbursement",

2) considered null and void if a third party (airline, tourbus company, family and/or friends of a victim), without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good Sam" provider,

3) considered null and void if the victim, without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good sam" provider,

4) considered null and void if the "Good Sam" decides to accept the offer of product and/or service

?

Number 2 I can speak to. If you perform your duties on a plane and get no perks out of it, then yes it's Good Sam. But if the airline gives you free flights, free alcohol/food or upgrades you to first class let's say(but that never happens because First class is always full due to the high status flyers being upgraded) then yes you fall out of Good Sam's protections. I asked a Missouri attorney about this and that is what he told me. You only fall out of Good Sam's protection if you accept the perks.

[akflightmedic]

Number 2 I can speak to. If you perform your duties on a plane and get no perks out of it, then yes it's Good Sam. But if the airline gives you free flights, free alcohol/food or upgrades you to first class let's say(but that never happens because First class is always full due to the high status flyers being upgraded) then yes you fall out of Good Sam's protections. I asked a Missouri attorney about this and that is what he told me. You only fall out of Good Sam's protection if you accept the perks.

I fail to see how this is indeed true.

If the perks are offered BEFORE service is rendered, it makes sense. It a thank you is given AFTER care is rendered, then there is no way for this to disqualify you from Good Sam.

It is not as if you refused to volunteer until they listed what they would do for you.

Only discussing this in theory as it will never influence what I do or do not do, but I think the legal opinion is mistaken from this particular guy.

Edit: I hit about 10 different states websites and Canada and UK definition of Good Sam. All state as long as you are performing without remuneration or EXPECTATION of remuneration you are covered. So I still fail to see how acting in a non work related voluntary capacity and then accepting a gift AFTER care is provided makes you liable if you screwed up. Nothing in those laws stated your "immunity" was revoked if you accept a gift.

[Just Plain Ruff]

I fail to see how this is indeed true.

If the perks are offered BEFORE service is rendered, it makes sense. It a thank you is given AFTER care is rendered, then there is no way for this to disqualify you from Good Sam.

It is not as if you refused to volunteer until they listed what they would do for you.

Only discussing this in theory as it will never influence what I do or do not do, but I think the legal opinion is mistaken from this particular guy.

Edit: I hit about 10 different states websites and Canada and UK definition of Good Sam. All state as long as you are performing without remuneration or EXPECTATION of remuneration you are covered. So I still fail to see how acting in a non work related voluntary capacity and then accepting a gift AFTER care is provided makes you liable if you screwed up. Nothing in those laws stated your "immunity" was revoked if you accept a gift.

He might be wrong, but he might be right. I don't know. I just know that I'm not a lawyer and I would defer to his legal judgement.

but you are right in your statement on that it won't make me do anything different in helping out. And I have helped out in a plane, several times, and have indeed taken a free drink or moved to the empty seat in first class.

if I'm travelling on a plane and someone needs me, I'll help. If they offer me a gift of extra drinks (I don't drink alcohol) or a move to first class, I'm going to accept. But it's good that this doesn't happen all the time to me, but in the 1000 or so flights I've taken in the past 10 years, I've only had to help out a grand total of 6 times.

[ERDoc]

I fail to see how this is indeed true.

If the perks are offered BEFORE service is rendered, it makes sense. It a thank you is given AFTER care is rendered, then there is no way for this to disqualify you from Good Sam.

It is not as if you refused to volunteer until they listed what they would do for you.

Only discussing this in theory as it will never influence what I do or do not do, but I think the legal opinion is mistaken from this particular guy.

Edit: I hit about 10 different states websites and Canada and UK definition of Good Sam. All state as long as you are performing without remuneration or EXPECTATION of remuneration you are covered. So I still fail to see how acting in a non work related voluntary capacity and then accepting a gift AFTER care is provided makes you liable if you screwed up. Nothing in those laws stated your "immunity" was revoked if you accept a gift.

It sucks, but you said it in your post, "without remuneration." It doesn't matter if it was offered before or after. If you accept something you are being remunerated and as such, you may not be covered by the good sam laws. On that note however, no one has ever been found guilty. I'm at work so I don't have time to do an extensive search, but this is a good start.

http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=650839&sk=&date=&pageID=2

[akflightmedic]

It sucks, but you said it in your post, "without remuneration." It doesn't matter if it was offered before or after. If you accept something you are being remunerated and as such, you may not be covered by the good sam laws. On that note however, no one has ever been found guilty. I'm at work so I don't have time to do an extensive search, but this is a good start.

http://www.modernmed...&date=&pageID=2

Note I said without EXPECTATION of.....