Question re liability for not responding to a medical emergency on a U.S. carrier
A question for anyone with a legal background.
If there is an announcement requesting medical help on a flight on a U.S. carrier, and a health care worker on the flight does not respond to this call for help, does he put himself at risk of any civil suit or criminal penalty?
If there is an announcement requesting medical help on a flight on a U.S. carrier, and a health care worker on the flight does not respond to this call for help, does he put himself at risk of any civil suit or criminal penalty?
The healthcare provider cannot be held responsible unless if they establish a provider: patient relationship.
I would not think that EMTALA applies on an aircraft. Why are you asking?
Worst case, the person could claim they were impaired in some way - drunk, too tired, bad back. I can't imagine a situation where liability could be incurred.
I normally don't fly U.S. carriers but will be doing so in a few months.
In Canada I am insured against reasonable Canadian civil claims if I am found at fault. I am not insured against multi-million dollar claims in a U.S. court. For this reason I decline to treat Americans as non-emergency patients, and I will think long and hard before I treat one as an emergency patient.
I thought there was some kind of "responding to emergency" clause that they can't sue you if something goes wrong? I know that first-aiders in most countries are protected by this "Good Samaritan Law".
I would hope any medical professional would respond to an emergency (at least!) without weighing up the liability risks-- how would you live with yourself if someone died because you didn't act?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that you are not a doctor/nurse/whatever in America. Your license is in Canada so until you get licensed in America you are a normal person. I don't know how that holds up in court, but its my view on it.
I'm no lawyer, but as an emergency physician, I am very familiar with EMTALA.
EMTALA applies to healthcare institutions in regards to providing coverage and medical assessment of emergent patients and those in active labor. Providers must provide a medical screening exam and ensure the patient is stable. They must do this regardless of the patient's ability to pay.
An airline would not qualify under EMTALA because (1) the airline isn't a healthcare institution, and (2) you are not employeed by the airline. You are only obligated to provide a MSE/stabilizing treatment if you have a duty to act, which generally means you are getting paid or are officially representing your healthcare institution.
Good Samaritan laws vary significantly by state, but will generally prevent any lawsuit judgement against you if you acted in good faith, did not exceed your level of training, and were not compensated for your services or didn't have an obligation to provide services. Some have argued that the free upgrade to first class, free alcohol, or free miles after providing medical services aboard an airline constitutes reimbursement for your services. This could be successfully argued in court, but to my knowledge it hasn't been.
Keep in mind that even though Good Samaritan laws protect you from judgements against you, it doesn't mean that a person can't file a lawsuit and try to argue you weren't afforded protection under the Good Samaritan law. This could cost tons of legal fees for you. Good Samaritan laws vary by state, but there is a federal airline Good Samaritan law (see below).
As a Canadian physician, if you fly from a US city to another US city, the airline crew likely will not open the advanced medical kit for you.
The moral of this story: our legal system sucks when it's so bad that people have second thoughts of helping someone in true need because they fear being sued!
In the United States, physicians are under no legal obligation to provide assistance in these situations, but a federal law passed 10 years ago includes Good Samaritan immunity for those who do. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 ensures that if you're flying in the United States, even if the airline is not owned by a U.S. company, you have Good Samaritan protection. Canada and the United Kingdom have similar laws. The laws on intercontinental flights are more complicated; the simplest explanation is that the laws of the country in which the airline is based are in effect. For example, on a flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, on Qantas Airlines, Australian law (which says you have a duty to act) would be in effect.
Like state statutes, the Aviation Medical Assistance Act provides Good Samaritans with protection from lawsuits alleging negligence " ... unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct." The act protects airline companies from liability as well "if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual." Airline employees meet the "in good faith" requirement by asking whether the person who volunteers to help is a health care provider.
When responding to most in-flight medical emergencies, physicians have a variety of tools at their disposal. Most airplanes are equipped with automated external defibrillators (AEDs); the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that any plane weighing 7,500 pounds or more and carrying at least one flight attendant must have an AED on board. In addition, most U.S. airlines have 24/7 access to emergency physicians who can be consulted if needed. The FAA also requires that an emergency medical kit be available and that it be stocked with certain items, including medications, IV supplies and syringes. On many airlines, basic first-aid supplies are stored separately. In an emergency, it is a good idea to ask for both the emergency medical kit and the first-aid supplies to ensure that you'll have everything you need.
It is not unusual for physicians who respond to serious in-flight medical emergencies to be asked to advise the pilot on whether the plane should be diverted so that the passenger can be treated at a hospital sooner rather than later. Do not assume the burden of deciding whether the plane gets rerouted; that is a decision best left to the pilot. Instead, offer your medical opinion about the patient's condition and a prognosis expressed in terms of time, for example, "The patient has extremely high blood pressure, and there are indications she is having a stroke. The sooner she can be treated at a hospital, the better her prognosis will be."
__________________ If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.
good samaritan laws only apply once you've decided to render aid. they're designed to protect you and avoid discouraging you to make that decision.
although laws in the US vary by state, there is no obligation for any member of the general public to render aid. the only exception (apart from the duty of hospitals et al without regard to payment) involves reporting child abuse.
I'm no lawyer, but as an emergency physician, I am very familiar with EMTALA....
Keep in mind that even though Good Samaritan laws protect you from judgements against you, it doesn't mean that a person can't file a lawsuit and try to argue you weren't afforded protection under the Good Samaritan law....
So it seems that the largest barrier to wanting to give assistance is the possibility of being sued in civil court by the person you helped.
Under what claim would they sue you? what damages? As long as you acted reasonably, I would hope (no lawyer here) that you could pretty easily reply that you probably saved his/her life, and not only that, recover lawyers' fees and damages for a frivolous lawsuit?
nder what claim would they sue you? what damages? As long as you acted reasonably, I would hope (no lawyer here) that you could pretty easily reply that you probably saved his/her life, and not only that, recover lawyers' fees and damages for a frivolous lawsuit?
Unfortunately a lot of juries don't see it that way. They see someone who is incapacitated and feel sorry for them. There have been numerous awards against physicians for patients with bad outcomes even though the outcome wasn't related to the physician's treatment. One juror that a colleague (MD/JD who does medical defense work) interviewed said "I know the doctor didn't do anything wrong, but I felt sorry for the guy and thought he should be given some money since he cannot work anymore and is disabled for life."
A colleague of mine was sued (later dropped, but he couldn't recover court costs) because of a patient admitted who had a bad outcome because a surgeon didn't operate in a timely fashion. As an emergency physician there wasn't much he could do to treat the patient. The patient needed a surgeon, and this particular surgeon didn't come to the hospital in a timely fashion. Although my colleague was later dropped from the suit, it wasn't until after he, my company, and the medical malpractice insurer spent tons of money preparing for the defense, securing expert witnesses, etc. This could have been easily avoided had a lawyer done his homework instead of just filing a lawsuit against every doctor who touched the patient. (This is why some physicians are filing lawsuits against lawyers who do this kind of crap.)
This is why physicians are leaving the practice of medicine. People are not appreciative of the help you provide, and some patients view medical treatment praying for a disaster so they can get a winning lottery ticket. I was overheard a patient on a cell phone talking to a friend that she was going to sue the person who rear-ended her. Then she said "maybe the doc will f#!% up too so I can sue him too."
Gotta love our society. Too many lawyers.
__________________ If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.
Under what claim would they sue you? what damages?
The lawyer for the plaintiff would likely position it by suggested you're not harming the doc because they're covered by "big insurance policies" - The lawyer will usually "chase the money" which involves chasing the doc's liability insurer.
Unfortunately a lot of juries don't see it that way. They see someone who is incapacitated and feel sorry for them. There have been numerous awards against physicians for patients with bad outcomes even though the outcome wasn't related to the physician's treatment. One juror that a colleague (MD/JD who does medical defense work) interviewed said "I know the doctor didn't do anything wrong, but I felt sorry for the guy and thought he should be given some money since he cannot work anymore and is disabled for life."...
Wow, I will have to keep that in mind -- that jury members can view it as the responsibility of anyone who becomes involved to be on the hook for someone's misfortune.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerndoc
Gotta love our society. Too many lawyers.
I don't think that's the cause -- lawyers simply appear because the system needs it. It is the laws that allow people to sue in this fashion that need reworking.
I don't think that's the cause -- lawyers simply appear because the system needs it. It is the laws that allow people to sue in this fashion that need reworking.
I believe our system should be a "loser pays" system like some countries have.
If a person gets sued and the jury sides with the defendant, the plaintiff should be responsible for covering the defendant's attorney costs, pay all court costs, and pay costs of the defendant missing work at whatever salary they normally earn. If the lawyer takes on the case for free contingent upon a successful litigation (i.e., the lawyer doesn't get anything up front, but gets a large percentage if the jury sides with the plaintiff and recommends and award), then the lawyer should be responsible for paying for the defendant's bills.
__________________ If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.
