BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 633
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 633 (Salas)
As Amended August 26, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |67-1 |(May 16, 2013) |SENATE: |37-0 |(September 3, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
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.
The Senate amendments :
1)Provide that an employer may adopt and enforce a policy
authorizing employees trained in emergency services to provide
those services. However, in the event of an emergency, any
available employee may voluntarily provide emergency medical
services if a trained and authorized employee is not
immediately available or is otherwise unable or unwilling to
provide emergency medical services.
2)Recast language in the bill to provide that an employer may
adopt and enforce a policy prohibiting an employee from
performing emergency medical services on a person who has
expressed the desire to forego resuscitation or other medical
interventions, as specified.
3)Specify that the bill does not impose any express or implied
duty on an employer to train its employees regarding emergency
medical services or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
4)Add a principal co-author and co-authors.
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
civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an
act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or
wanton misconduct.
AB 633
Page 2
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 the
facility indicated that she would not perform cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (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,
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
AB 633
Page 3
fear of being disciplined or fired.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN:
0001946