BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 633
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 633 (Salas)
          As Amended  May 13, 2013
          Majority vote 

           LABOR & EMPLOYMENT            7-0                   JUDICIARY    
          10-0                
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Roger Hernández, Morrell, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner,       |
          |     |Alejo, Chau, Gomez,       |     |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson,   |
          |     |Gorell, Holden            |     |Garcia, Gorell,           |
          |     |                          |     |Maienschein, Muratsuchi,  |
          |     |                          |     |Stone                     |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Prohibits an employer from adopting a policy or  
          practice that prohibits an employee from voluntarily providing  
          emergency medical services in response to a medical emergency.   
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Provides that an employer shall not adopt or enforce a policy  
            or practice prohibiting an employee from voluntarily providing  
            emergency medical services, including, but not limited to,  
            cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), in response to a medical  
            emergency.

          2)Provides that specified provisions of existing law related to  
            civil liability would apply to an employee providing  
            resuscitation.

          3)Provides that this prohibition shall not apply to a long-term  
            health care facility, a community care facility, adult day  
            health care centers, residential care facility for the  
            elderly, or licensed health facility if there is a "do not  
            resuscitate" or "Physician Orders for Life Sustaining  
            Treatment" forms or an advance health care directive that  
            prohibits resuscitation in effect for the person upon whom the  
            resuscitation would otherwise be performed.

           EXISTING LAW  provides that no person who in good faith, and not  
          for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care  
          or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for  








                                                                  AB 633
                                                                  Page  2


          civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an  
          act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or  
          wanton misconduct.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown.  This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the  
          Legislative Counsel. 

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, this measure is in response  
          to a recent well-publicized incident at a retirement community  
          in Bakersfield.  According to media reports, in February of this  
          year an 87-year-old resident of the Glenwood Gardens retirement  
          community collapsed in the dining room of the facility.  Media  
          reports showed that a 911 call revealed that an employee of  
          facility indicated that she would not perform CPR on the woman  
          due to a facility policy that prevented employees from  
          performing life-saving procedures.  The woman subsequently  
          passed away before emergency services personnel could arrive.   
          According to news reports, the facility director later issued a  
          written statement asserting that the incident resulted from a  
          "complete misunderstanding" of the facility's practice with  
          regards to emergency medical care for its residents.

          Existing state law (referred to generally as "Good Samaritan"  
          law) provides that no person who in good faith, and not for  
          compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or  
          assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for  
          civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an  
          act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or  
          wanton misconduct.  Existing law also contains other specific  
          liability provisions related to medical, law enforcement, and  
          emergency personnel, and others.

          According to the author, CPR is a series of life saving actions  
          that improve the chance of survival following cardiac arrest.   
          According to the American Heart Association, there are  
          approximately 360,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the  
          United States each year, accounting for 15% of all deaths.  On  
          average, bystander CPR is provided in only approximately  
          one-fourth of all out-of-hospital events in the United States  
          despite public education campaigns and promotion of CPR as a  
          best practice. 

          The author states that the question of whether employers have  
          policies that prevent employees from performing CPR is unclear,  








                                                                  AB 633
                                                                  Page  3


          which may cause confusion among Californians.  The author argues  
          that any existing employer policies preventing employees from  
          performing CPR should be against public policy.  Such employer  
          policies may discourage employees from performing CPR due to  
          fear of being disciplined or fired. 

          The California Hospital Association (CHA) opposes this bill  
          unless amended.  CHA states that the Good Samaritan provision of  
          existing law exempts "emergency departments and other places  
          where medical care is usually offered" from the definition of a  
          "scene of an emergency."  CHA states that this is in recognition  
          that hospitals and other places where medical care is usually  
          offered have a multitude of skilled individuals whose job it is  
          to render emergency medical care and assistance and that there  
          are specific protocols for doing so in those environments.  
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 


                                                                FN: 0000529