liability concerns for instructors

M

medicoccia

Forum Ride Along
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm taking a NAEMSE course later this month and one of the required activities prior to class is to come up with a defensible position on a topic. My topic is the following:
"A crew of one EMT and one first responders that recently graduated from your courses have been unable to properly administer defibrillation shocks when indicated. They were trained on a different AED model. The patient did not survive the event. The family is threatening to sue you personally and the training program."

I've tried looking for examples of this in real life and have been unsuccessful. I've also tried searching for laws pertaining to this situation, also unsuccessfully. Does anyone have any recommendations on reading material or personal experience with this type of situation?

Thanks
 
All I know is that the EMT program I teach at keeps student records for something like 5+ years. The paperwork says that the student tested out of all areas of the EMT program proficiently.

According to the director of the program that is supposed to cover our butts. I'm not a lawyer nor have any idea about laws so I don't know if it works or not.
 
The company that the EMT is employed by who did not properly train them on the equipment the company uses is liable, not the EMT course or it's instructors.

There's lots of different makes and models of medical equipment, it's impractical if not impossible to train every student on every possible piece of equipment that they could potentially be required to use. If their company failed to train them how to the the equipment that's on them.

If the school was passing people who did not properly complete/pass the different testing stations then that's a different scenario all together but if the school has records showing the student was tested on and passed the required stations I don't see any possibility of hold the school and its instructors liable.

The example you were presented with is pretty shady, at best. We teach middle and high schoolers BLS which includes using an AED. They aren't complicated to use...hell they tell you exactly what to do!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robb said:
The company that the EMT is employed by who did not properly train them on the equipment the company uses is liable, not the EMT course or it's instructors.

There's lots of different makes and models of medical equipment, it's impractical if not impossible to train every student on every possible piece of equipment that they could potentially be required to use. If their company failed to train them how to the the equipment that's on them.

If the school was passing people who did not properly complete/pass the different testing stations then that's a different scenario all together but if the school has records showing the student was tested on and passed the required stations I don't see any possibility of hold the school and its instructors liable.

The example you were presented with is pretty shady, at best. We teach middle and high schoolers BLS which includes using an AED. They aren't complicated to use...hell they tell you exactly what to do!
Click to expand...

Like he said.

All three training companies I work with have a video with the phrase "Other brands of AED's may operate a little differently".

It's the employer's responsibility to train employees on their equipment and have standard equipment.
 
I'm not familiar with any similar scenarios.

If a family is hell-bent on suing over an apparent issue of lack of training, I would think it not unlikely for them to sue the program and instructors that the EMT recently graduated from.

That is, barring any state laws that disallow such an action, of course; I think many states have statutes that bar individuals from being named in such suits.

When something goes bad in medicine, "everyone in the room" gets sued. With that in mind, those I would expect to see potentially named in a suit would be:

  • the EMT himself
  • the EMT's employing agency
  • the agency medical director
  • the company that made the AED
  • the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from
  • the instructor(s) in the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from
  • the medical director of the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from.

Being "named" in a suit doesn't mean anything is going to happen to you. I would think it would be easy for the EMT training program to prove that the EMT was adequately trained in the use of an AED, and that you'd be subsequently dismissed from the suit.

The suit would then pursue the EMT, the EMT's employer, and possibly the manufacturer, if they can make even a vague argument that the EMT's lack of ability to operate the AED had anything to do with the AED's design.
 
old school said:
I'm not familiar with any similar scenarios.

If a family is hell-bent on suing over an apparent issue of lack of training, I would think it not unlikely for them to sue the program and instructors that the EMT recently graduated from.

That is, barring any state laws that disallow such an action, of course; I think many states have statutes that bar individuals from being named in such suits.

When something goes bad in medicine, "everyone in the room" gets sued. With that in mind, those I would expect to see potentially named in a suit would be:

  • the EMT himself
  • the EMT's employing agency
  • the agency medical director
  • the company that made the AED
  • the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from
  • the instructor(s) in the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from
  • the medical director of the EMT program that the EMT recently graduated from.

Being "named" in a suit doesn't mean anything is going to happen to you. I would think it would be easy for the EMT training program to prove that the EMT was adequately trained in the use of an AED, and that you'd be subsequently dismissed from the suit.

The suit would then pursue the EMT, the EMT's employer, and possibly the manufacturer, if they can make even a vague argument that the EMT's lack of ability to operate the AED had anything to do with the AED's design.
Click to expand...


What this guy said.

Also the school where my P program is video records (From 3 angles) all TSOP's (technical scope of practice) exams. The instructors are not going to "pass you through" unless you actually get it right. Because there is video record that gets kept 5 years (minimum) on DVD's and if your training comes into question someone can pull those back out and say, well here is an example where he DID know this and we passed him on it.

I think more and more schools will be going this route to cover their rear end
 
I think they are confusing the scenario they gave you with the liability of an instructor who teaches you something beyond your scope or not consistant with your curriculum.

For example, if I am teaching a paramedic class and decide paramedics should know how to do a thoracotomy and I teach them how and when, and one actually goes out and does it, I can (in fact will) be held liable for faulty instruction.

Otherwise, the above responses cover this very well.
 
Alright, thanks everybody! Those are some great points and ideas (I really like the DVD records one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top