BILL ANALYSIS �
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 Hern�ndez, 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