On 3 Oct 96 at 13:23, BSquare936@aol.com wrote: > >I wonder: Your kit goes well beyond "first aid", and demonstrates a > >pre-planned inclination to respond aggressively to happenstance. > >Are you at risk for professional liability, and lack of "Good > >Samaritan" protection? (I'm in much the same boat 'cause I carry my > >USAR gear with me and don't think twice about responding to > >roadside attractions). Just a thought... > > > >Eddie B. > > > Edwardo, > > Good question - I've wondered the same. > > To my reading, the Good Samaritan statutes don't specify any > particular level of intervention as suddenly becoming > "professional." Protection as a Good Samaritan has more to do with > the intention to help within your capabilities and without any > expectation of any compensation than with the specific level of help > provided. Of course, each state has different wording for their > statute, but that's the general intent. So as far as I can tell - > no, having extra equipment doesn't increase risk of liability. > > Any input from our legal-savvy folks? A few important points. Medical practice is regulated on a state-by-state level, and every state has a different "Good Samaritan Law." And so you have to preface this by noting that each state is different. But there are several general principles that apply for almost all states. Good Samaritan Laws provide immunity from civil actions (being "sued") for those who provide emergency care: 1. without compensation 2. in good faith 3. without gross negligence. Note that (1) may or may not apply to the salaries of EMTs, paramedics and doctors who are paid to provide prehospital care -- some states specifically include such people in Good Samaritan protection, other states exclude them. (2) means that you aren't pretending to help and really trying to kill the person. Some states offer protection specifically to those who have CPR or other medical, others apply to everyone. The first Good Samaritan laws were specifically to encourages physicians to stop at the scene of an emergency without fear of being sued. Note that (3) specifically says "gross" negligence, which requires a higher standard of proof than plain negligence. Law suits (civil suits) are a legal action where a person attempts to reclaim money from someone who allegedly wronged the person; distinguished from a criminal action, which is brought by the government against a person for violating the law. Civil suits may arise from claims of negligence, or from claims of intentional damage (known as tort claims). A civil suit can be brought by anyone against anyone else, irrespective of how poorly grounded the claim, Good Samaritan and other laws notwithstanding. An example of a tort claim would be a claim of battery, when you treated (touched) a patient who was alert, oriented, and legally competent, and who refused treatment. Another would be a claim that through your negligent emergency care at the roadside, the patient suffered harm. A good Samaritan law may be cited in the defense of such a claim, but is only one of many items that are taken in consideration. Indeed, there was an abstract in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine that is apropos: Liability Immunity as a Legal Defense for Recent Emergency Medical Service System Litigation David L Morgan, MD, Vicky A. Trompler, MD, William R. Trail, JD Division of Emergency Medicine University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas Texas Purpose: To review all recent EMS system civil litigation appellate cases to determine their common characteristics and the number that used liability immunity (sovereign immunity, emergency medical care immunity, or Good Samaritan immunity) as a legal defense. Methods: The WESTLAW (R) computerized database of legal cases from all state and federal appellate courts was used to obtain all legal cases that named a member of the EMS system as a defendant, involved either a patient care incident or ambulance e collision, and received an appellate court opinion from 1987 to 1992. Results: Eighty-six cases were found and analyzed. Most cases (85%) were related to a patient-care incident and 71% of the cases involved a death or significant physical injury. More than 49% of the patient cases alleged inadequate assessment or treatment and 27% a11eged delay in ambulance arrival or no ambulance arrival. There were 11 cases (15%) alleging no transport of the patient to the hospital. Liability immunity was used as a defense in 53 of the cases. The appellate courts ruled in favor of 68% of the defendants that did not use an immunity defense, and in favor of 72% of those that did use liability immunity. Conclusion: Then have been a 1arge number of recent appellate cases involving EMS systems. The common characteristics of many of these cases demonstrates the need for providing rapid ambulance arrival proper assessment and treatment' and rapid patient transportation to a hospital. Although liability immunity was used as a legal defense by most EMS system defendants, the appellate court outcome was similar regardless of its use. (Poster 1-3, NAEMSP 1994 Poster Sessions, July-September 1994). Negligence claims hinge on the plaintiff (the individual suing) proving that a chain of five elements occurred. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must prove (1) that you had a duty to act on behalf of the plaintiff, (2) that you committed an unreasonable act or omission in the context of this duty, (3) an injury occurred to the plaintiff, (4) proximate cause (your act or omission must have caused the injury), and (5) forseeability: you must have been able to foresee the possibility of injury. Do you have a duty to help anyone in distress? Frew, writing in his book Street Law, cites an example: "You are walking down the street while vacationing in a neighboring state. Across the street, you observe a man in his late fifties suddenly clutch his chest and fall to his knees and then to the pavement. His wife is frantically calling for help. You are an EMT . . . Is there a duty to help this person? In these circumstances, the legal concept of duty [in the U.S., as derived from British common law -KC] says that you are under no duty to aid a person to whom you had no special relationship and to whom you had not caused injury. There is no legal duty requiring you to be a Good Samaritan." Exceptions are Vermont and Minnesota, which have enacted duty to act statutes. Minn. Stat. Ann. 604.05(1) (West Supp. 1985) and Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12,519(a) (1973). And none of this hinges on whether you have a medical kit with you or not. Hope this is of interest. --Keith Conover, M.D. ------------------------------------------------------------- In 1972 (Colby v. Schwartz, 78 Cal.App.3d 885,144 Cal.Rpt.624 1978) a member of a hospital surgical staff was called in to evaluate an MVA victim. Pt died from inuries. Physician asserted GS Law, claiming he rendered "emergency care," but as part of his normal practice. Appellate court found GS did not apply. In 1973 (McKenna v. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, 93 Cal.App.3d 282, 155 Cal.Rptr.631 1979) a physician in the hospital, but not on call for emergencies, assisted at an emergency on another floor, negligently administered valium, patient died. Court considered him a "medical volunteer" with no duty to provide care and no previous relationship with patient. His resident status did not make him a member of an emergency team that might be expected to deal with emergencies, differentiating this case from Colby. GS defense applied. And a bizarre favorite, also from my fair State, regarding EMS duty, tho not invoking Good Sam rules: (Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles, 272, Cal.Rptr. 635 (Cal.App.2 Dist 1990): Medics reponded to a pedi GSW and elected to stage nearby and wait for police before entering a potentially dangerous scene. Child died. Court found no apparent danger to paramedics, yet ruled that the duty to act and attendant standards defined care applied , a place medics never arrived; that the paramedics did not create the peril (!), that the patient did not rely on medics' actions; that the medics made no promise to render aid. Court found for defendant. --Tom McGuire