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