Geez is this for real: Businesses Not Allowing Employees to Perform CPR!!

[Medic348]

OK, So talking to a few restaurant owners, I found out that they will not let there employees provide CPR or even abdominal thrust on customers that are choking because they are afraid of lawsuits. I get the good Samaritan law but are there loop holes of some sorts? This seems to be a big problem and totally against everything we are about!

 

[NPO]

This will depend on where you are talking about and what the good Sam law (if any) states.

According to my medical director any person who is not an on duty provider, acting in good faith, is protected by our law.

 

[TheLocalMedic]

The whole "don't help or we might get sued" attitude is sorely misguided and also speaks to the sadly litigious state of affairs in this country. Good Samaritan laws will protect a would-be rescuer from a lawsuit, as long as they are not doing anything wildly inappropriate.

I hope an ambulance chasing "lawyer" chokes in one of these restaurants and reaps the benefits of all the frivolous lawsuits they've brought over the years.

 

[jwk]

Interesting - in all the restaurants I see, there are posters about what to do if someone is choking. I'm assuming they're put there as part of complying with some health department requirement or other regulation - you know, just like the ones that say "all employees must wash their hands after using the restroom"

 

[unleashedfury]

as far as Heimlich maneuver or layperson CPR, you are acting in good faith to help a victim. you are protected,

If you get ambitious and try to do a needle cric with a pen and a steak knife. hit a carotid artery you are no longer covered by any type of good faith laws.

 

[Akulahawk]

OK, So talking to a few restaurant owners, I found out that they will not let there employees provide CPR or even abdominal thrust on customers that are choking because they are afraid of lawsuits. I get the good Samaritan law but are there loop holes of some sorts? This seems to be a big problem and totally against everything we are about!

It's all thanks to our wonderfully litigious society. Yes, generally speaking, the Good Sam acts do cover people that voluntarily rescue another. That's exactly the problem: voluntarily! What the business owners are afraid of is even appearing to say "yes, go forth and do CPR or Hemlich." By doing that, they're afraid that they're removing the Good Sam protections from their employees (and by extension,themselves) by virtue of directing their employees to provide aid, in effect, those employees are no longer voluntarily providing aid, it's a part of their duties as employees. There is usually some immunity for medical providers, but they're usually going to be specifically listed. Employees whose jobs include first aid but aren't employed in a first aid role aren't covered. See where the problem is and why they're very reluctant to allow employees to provide aid?

 

[Akulahawk]

as far as Heimlich maneuver or layperson CPR, you are acting in good faith to help a victim. you are protected,

If you get ambitious and try to do a needle cric with a pen and a steak knife. hit a carotid artery you are no longer covered by any type of good faith laws.

This is true if you're voluntarily providing the aid and it's not a part of your job. Once you're paid to provide aid, you're often not covered under Good Sam anymore. We, as EMS/Medical providers, are paid to provide aid, so it's in our job descriptions, and there usually are protections for us that are separate from Good Sam while we're on the clock, so to speak.

 

[NPO]

This is true if you're voluntarily providing the aid and it's not a part of your job. Once you're paid to provide aid, you're often not covered under Good Sam anymore. We, as EMS/Medical providers, are paid to provide aid, so it's in our job descriptions, and there usually are protections for us that are separate from Good Sam while we're on the clock, so to speak.

Generally only when ON DUTY. Verify your local laws of course, but like I said earlier, even I am protected if I'm off duty.

 

[Medic348]

Interesting - in all the restaurants I see, there are posters about what to do if someone is choking. I'm assuming they're put there as part of complying with some health department requirement or other regulation - you know, just like the ones that say "all employees must wash their hands after using the restroom"

And most feel this is all they have to comply with!

 

[TheLocalMedic]

It's all thanks to our wonderfully litigious society. Yes, generally speaking, the Good Sam acts do cover people that voluntarily rescue another. That's exactly the problem: voluntarily! What the business owners are afraid of is even appearing to say "yes, go forth and do CPR or Hemlich." By doing that, they're afraid that they're removing the Good Sam protections from their employees (and by extension,themselves) by virtue of directing their employees to provide aid, in effect, those employees are no longer voluntarily providing aid, it's a part of their duties as employees. There is usually some immunity for medical providers, but they're usually going to be specifically listed. Employees whose jobs include first aid but aren't employed in a first aid role aren't covered. See where the problem is and why they're very reluctant to allow employees to provide aid?

I don't know, Akula, I think you may be over thinking this a bit. I kind of doubt that restaurant owners are that familiar with Good Samaritan laws or have had time to sit down and reason out that whole trail of logic you just presented.

I think what's really going on is that they're afraid that if one of their employees touches a customer or somehow injured them by trying to help that they would "get sued". I bet their thoughts are more about 'leaving it to the professionals' than they are about Good Sam laws.

 

[Akulahawk]

Generally only when ON DUTY. Verify your local laws of course, but like I said earlier, even I am protected if I'm off duty.

Being that you're apparently in SoCal, when you're off-duty, you're covered by Good Sam. Any care you provide is off the clock, and by your own volition. The level of care you may provide when off-duty is defined by your local EMS agency. For instance, Sacramento County explicitly authorizes Paramedics who are accredited and affiliated with an ALS service, the full ALS scope of practice when off-duty. Santa Clara County only authorizes BLS.

Now if your agency considers you "on duty" all the time, even when not at your usual assigned post, you'd be covered under the same rules as you have when on-duty.

Good Sam and the on-duty protections we do have do NOT protect you against someone who sues you... but it does stop the lawsuit very early on in the process, and it won't protect you if you committed gross negligence.

 

[Akulahawk]

I don't know, Akula, I think you may be over thinking this a bit. I kind of doubt that restaurant owners are that familiar with Good Samaritan laws or have had time to sit down and reason out that whole trail of logic you just presented.

I think what's really going on is that they're afraid that if one of their employees touches a customer or somehow injured them by trying to help that they would "get sued". I bet their thoughts are more about 'leaving it to the professionals' than they are about Good Sam laws.

Yes, they're afraid of getting sued. Successfully sued. While they may not have gone that far down the decision tree as I went, that still doesn't mean they don't have the feeling/belief that by directing employees to provide care opens them up to lawsuit. So they discourage their employees from providing direct care and direct them to call 911.