Death on a plane

[gwen]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23327116/?GT1=10856

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Castro Viejo]

I'm sure the two "doctors" involved are gonna get their pants sued right off.

 

[Farmer Jane]

Ugh. Classic example of people expecting that every malady can be magically cured. The cousin's story makes no sense to anyone who is at all familiar with how such a case would be handled. Unfortunately, Castro is right--the doctors and nurses will be sued because they couldn't save a women who was already very unhealthy.

 

[Pir8DeacDoc]

I'm sure the two "doctors" involved are gonna get their pants sued right off.

I'm sure you're probably just trying to make a point about the state of things in terms of lawsuits these days. However, if you were serious I think these doctors would be covered by good samaritan laws which would protect them from prosecution. Otherwise doctors on planes would just sit there and let the mess unfold for fear of a bad outcome and lawsuit.

 

[LovelyRita]

sounds like a big fat PE. Scary. Poor lady. OTOH, they couldn't have been in the air for that long, if Miami was 45 minutes away....sooooo....I bet it's possible that whatever killed her she was having troubles with before she stepped on that plane.

Bummer.

 

[Tired]

I'm sure you're probably just trying to make a point about the state of things in terms of lawsuits these days. However, if you were serious I think these doctors would be covered by good samaritan laws which would protect them from prosecution. Otherwise doctors on planes would just sit there and let the mess unfold for fear of a bad outcome and lawsuit.

Somebody help me out here, but I seem to recall a very big loophole in the good samaratin law a few years back that airplanes were not covered. From what I remember, there was a lot of talk about fixing it, but I don't remember if it was done or not.

Remember kids, they can only sue you if they know you're a doctor. Put away your AMA shirt and pretend to sleep through the overhead announcements.

 

[Castro Viejo]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18209.html

It seems as if physicians should be covered by Good Samaritan Laws on airplanes so long as they do not expect financial compensation for their act and they act "rationally."

 

[Castro Viejo]

I'm sure you're probably just trying to make a point about the state of things in terms of lawsuits these days. However, if you were serious I think these doctors would be covered by good samaritan laws which would protect them from prosecution. Otherwise doctors on planes would just sit there and let the mess unfold for fear of a bad outcome and lawsuit.

Yes. That was my point and while your point is valid, I don't doubt for a second that both physicians who aided this patient on board as well as the RNs and EMTs involved in her care are going to get sued just for $hits and giggles.

Why? 'Cause it's a chance to rob the physicians of the "millions of dollars" they make annually. It's the classic Robin Hood opportunistic bull$hit that the American public and personal injury attorneys have fallen in love with over the last 30 years.

So the physician will be protected as a Good Samaritan. Who's going to pay his legal fees for representation when the patient's family sues him for his "medical negligence" and "failure to diagnose and treat in a timely fashion?"

The larger issue I see here is should one voluntarily respond to the call of "Is there a Doctor on board?" just what the hell are you going to do anyway? Most planes are now equipped with AEDs and these will defibrillate when required. Oxygen is a no brainer for most people. The woman was complaining that she couldn't "breathe." It doesn't take eight years of college and years of postgraduate training to figure, "Hey, maybe some supplemental oxygen will help!"

Can you lap a guy's belly if you think he's got a ruptured AAA and you want to try to cross clamp it with your hand until you land?

Can you even perform a cric if you think the patient needs a surgical airway?

Do they carry epinephrine pens? Do they carry insulin? Do they carry glucose shots? Honestly, there's very little you can do on an airplane as a physician that the average schmoe with basic CPR/BLS training can't do, so just why put yourself in the line of fire? 'Cause you just know that "society" has entirely UNREALISTIC expectations of what physicians can do no matter the situation or environs. The current malpractice case involving John Ritter is a classic example of how the lay public thinks physicians are a bunch of superhuman beings and that they should have some Star Trek-like tricorder to figure out just what the hell is wrong with the person within 5 seconds on meeting him/her.

 

[Castro Viejo]

Remember kids, they can only sue you if they know you're a doctor. Put away your AMA shirt and pretend to sleep through the overhead announcements.

Word up.

 

[Tired]

It seems as if physicians should be covered by Good Samaritan Laws on airplanes so long as they do not expect financial compensation for their act and they act "rationally."

F*ck that. Co-pay up front, mo-fo, or you can take your chances with the highly-trained flight attendants.

 

[core0]

Somebody help me out here, but I seem to recall a very big loophole in the good samaratin law a few years back that airplanes were not covered. From what I remember, there was a lot of talk about fixing it, but I don't remember if it was done or not.

Remember kids, they can only sue you if they know you're a doctor. Put away your AMA shirt and pretend to sleep through the overhead announcements.

What you may be remembering is the loophole castroviejo spoke about. The thinking was that if you accepted any "compensation" such as a free ticket or a seat upgrade it was open season. I don't know if this is real or an urban myth (nothing in snopes anyway).

David Carpenter, PA-C

 

[Castro Viejo]

What you may be remembering is the loophole castroviejo spoke about. The thinking was that if you accepted any "compensation" such as a free ticket or a seat upgrade it was open season. I don't know if this is real or an urban myth (nothing in snopes anyway).

The article in that link I posted mentioned that the physician accepted a bottle of wine for aiding a patient on board.

Is this considered compensation?

The solution? Be sure to bring your IPods with you and turn up the volume.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Actually, I worry that the problem is that all the Good Samaratan laws are state based. There is no Federal Good Smaratan law.

Exactly what state law is in effect when you are in a plane? Over water, for that matter in this case? If none, then there is no Good Samaratan legal protection.

Perhaps Law2Doc will comment, or anyone else with more legal knowledge than me (which is most anyone, come to think of it)

 

[Dos Dedos]

I'm sure the two "doctors" involved are gonna get their pants sued right off.

I think the airlines are gonna get hit with a lawsuit. Even though she was pronounced dead, I still can't believe the flight kept going. They devert flights these days for all kinds of silly things, but not an on-board death. Maybe the doctor and other medical professionals will be spared from litigation.

 

[DadofDr2B]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23327116/?GT1=10856

It is interesting to me that no blood sugar data is given in the article. Was she carrying a gluscose monitor and did she have glucose with her or glucophalge (Spelling???) shot? Lastly, the autopsy will tell the real story. If her heart or lungs gave out, no amount of oxygen is going to save her.

I am a Dad of a Type 1 diabetic, not a resident or Doc. Go easy on me. I have a law degree but do not practice.

If I practiced law, I would defend the doctors pro bono. Good samaritans are protected. They must not take compensation for their services. The duty of care is to not knowingly injure the patient or to do something that would constitute gross negligence.

I would say the doctors would get summary judgements and the cases would not go to trial. The judges would not allow a jury decision and decide the case based on the law.

If I were a doctor involved, I would be concerned but not frightened by the law suits. Counter suing for libel and slander can make the complaining party just as nervous. JMO

 

[lord_jeebus]

Do they carry epinephrine pens? Do they carry insulin? Do they carry glucose shots?

Per the FDA

An airplane's medical kit must be accessible to the flight crew, but is for use only by medical professionals. It must include:

* blood pressure cuff
* stethoscope
* plastic airways to deliver oxygen to help with breathing
* nitroglycerin tablets for chest pain
* dextrose solution for hypoglycemia
* epinephrine for asthma or allergic reactions
* injectable diphenhydramine HCl for serious allergic reactions
* hypodermic needles
* protective latex gloves.

There's a more technical (but older) listing here

 

[Castro Viejo]

Actually, I worry that the problem is that all the Good Samaratan laws are state based. There is no Federal Good Smaratan law.

Exactly what state law is in effect when you are in a plane? Over water, for that matter in this case? If none, then there is no Good Samaratan legal protection.

Perhaps Law2Doc will comment, or anyone else with more legal knowledge than me (which is most anyone, come to think of it)

Isn't it like a boat? Country of origin? Or, in this case, State/Territory of origin?

 

[Castro Viejo]

I think the airlines are gonna get hit with a lawsuit. Even though she was pronounced dead, I still can't believe the flight kept going. They devert flights these days for all kinds of silly things, but not an on-board death. Maybe the doctor and other medical professionals will be spared from litigation.

How much do you wanna bet that everyone involved will at least be named in a lawsuit and called for a deposition? I'm not saying that the physicians themselves will stand trial, but they'll at least be named by some Ambulance Chaser who's looking to win big and dig up dirt during the deposition to screw the airline company (or the physicians for that matter).

And retaining counsel for the deposition is going to cost these physicians money. Money for the legal fees and that which has been lost from NOT working.

As for diverting the flight... There's nothing more that can be done. It's not as if diverting the flight is going to bring this lady back to life. They ain't gonna dump the body on the side of the road on the way back to New York from Haiti. So why divert? They're screwed anyway.

What's really messed up is they just laid her out on the floor of First Class and put a sheet over her. I mean, I know there's not much room on an airplane in general, but what did all the First Class passengers do?

 

[Castro Viejo]

It is interesting to me that no blood sugar data is given in the article. Was she carrying a gluscose monitor and did she have glucose with her or glucophalge (Spelling???) shot? Lastly, the autopsy will tell the real story. If her heart or lungs gave out, no amount of oxygen is going to save her.

I am a Dad of a Type 1 diabetic, not a resident or Doc. Go easy on me. I have a law degree but do not practice.

While you bring up a very common problem that a physician may have to respond to out in the community, I don't know that low blood sugar would've killed her in the manner she described. "I can't breathe" isn't a common complaint associated with hypo or hyperglycemia. Seizures? Maybe.

As for what the Medical Examiner found, that MSNBC clip mentioned that the New York City Medical Examiner's Office determined the death to be "of natural causes." That means absolutely nothing to me.

If I practiced law, I would defend the doctors pro bono. Good samaritans are protected. They must not take compensation for their services. The duty of care is to not knowingly injure the patient or to do something that would constitute gross negligence.

I would say the doctors would get summary judgements and the cases would not go to trial. The judges would not allow a jury decision and decide the case based on the law.

If I were a doctor involved, I would be concerned but not frightened by the law suits. Counter suing for libel and slander can make the complaining party just as nervous. JMO

You are a true gentleman if you were to offer to defend these physicians pro bono, but not everyone in law is as giving of their services. Like it or not, these guys are going to have to find good, expen$ive lawyers in New York to defend them. The public reacts to this as the big, bad airline company killed this lady because they didn't have enough oxygen based on what her cousin had said in initial reports. Secondly they'll react to the physicians as bungling idiots who probably expedited her demise by not doing the wrong thing.

The MSNBC video mentioned that the pilot's union released a statement saying that the confusion over the situation goes back to one of the physicians trying to connect an Ambubag to the oxygen tank, but became frustrated when it wouldn't "mate." Correct me if I'm wrong, since I only connect Ambubags every now and then when the nurses don't feel like doing it for me in a code, but if the Ambubag doesn't connect to the tank, how the hell else will a mask? Did they expect people to drink from the tank? All tanks basically have the same connectors. I don't get it.

With regard to counter-suing for libel and slander, why hasn't that reached a level where it's relatively commonplace? I'd think that'd be a great way to get back at those rats, but I read of isolated instances and that's about it.

 

[Bobblehead]

Aside from the medical issues, it's notable that:

1. One of the doctor's declared her dead. I'm not sure I would personally feel comfortable doing that and would have opted to support her or whatnot until passed off to an ER where they could declare her dead.

2. One of the doctors already has a lawyer which is good for him. Everyone else in the incident should already have retained one. That's the society we live in.

One more data point, Northwest actually has medical assistance certificates that you can mail in for 5,000 frequent flyer points. The airlines value miles around 1 cent/mile so that's about $50. It's an interesting viewpoint that cashing one of these in would make one less likely to be protected by good samaritan laws.

As far as I know, no one has ever been succesfully sued for aid rendered on an airplane. I think if this case results in the first successful lawsuit the results would be..chilling to say the least.

 

[yaah]

What I thought was interesting about the story is that the primary "medical expert" they were talking to in the article was the patient's relative, who is not a doctor.

What is also interesting is that the first version of this article that I read yesterday said that they tried two different oxygen tanks and both were empty, and then the patient died. That article (don't know where I saw it) implied that the patient died primarily due to negligence of the airline in having oxygen on board. The article in this thread doesn't say this at all.

This is a classic case where someone will spin it to suggest that earlier intervention would have made a difference. The problem is, no one knows whether that is true or not. No doubt someone will have to pay. I doubt it will be the doctor though. The angry statements are directed at not getting oxygen when it was asked for. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many times on an average flight a person randomly asks for oxygen? I bet it's fairly high - they can't just give it out like candy, I imagine. Sad story, nonetheless, but hard to know the whole truth. Was she sick beforehand? Why did she actually die? Would oxygen or any other intervention have made any real difference?

 

[l&usibari]

What really baffles me is, like someone else said, why they didn't continue CPR until the plane landed and they could access a functional AED. If they had done that, the woman would have stood a chance at surviving.

 

[Faebinder]

Congradulations folks... you just re-affirmed my previously unstable conviction: "I will not stop to help anyone in medical distress, unless he is on my service." My license is more precious. Good luck with your MI/PE/CVA.

 

[Pir8DeacDoc]

Congradulations folks... you just re-affirmed my previously unstable conviction: "I will not stop to help anyone in medical distress, unless he is on my service." My license is more precious. Good luck with your MI/PE/CVA.

Yeah I don't think I'd offer to help either. Plus, as previously mentioned, what the hell am I gonna do? If you have a blade and a tube of some sort I can cric you but otherwise not much help I can provide.

 

[gwen]

that AMA article had a link that shows what the good sam laws are for each state:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15833.html

still, it does not answer the question of how it covers a physician on a plane. anyone know a lawyer who could find out?

we all travel a good amount and i'm not sure what i would do if something like that msn article happened to me. i mean, its normal to want to help...but its scary with this law-suit crazy world.

 

[Farmer Jane]

What really baffles me is, like someone else said, why they didn't continue CPR until the plane landed and they could access a functional AED. If they had done that, the woman would have stood a chance at surviving.

There's no reason to believe the AED wasn't functioning. The patient's cousin said it didn't work. He also referred to it as "a box." In other words, he has no idea and we can't rely on his statement to conclude that the AED didn't work. In all likelihood, it worked just fine but she had a non-shockable rhythm. Or she had a shockable rhythm, it shocked her, but didn't bring her back. Both situations could lead an uneducated person to state that the AED didn't "work."

Also, we don't know how long this went on. Really, how long do you perform CPR on a dead person? How long do you shock them? Does your answer change depending upon who is watching?

 

[Castro Viejo]

What really baffles me is, like someone else said, why they didn't continue CPR until the plane landed and they could access a functional AED. If they had done that, the woman would have stood a chance at surviving.

My understanding is that they were still 45 minutes out of New York City/JFK when this whole thing happened. I doubt continuing CPR would've been beneficial at reviving this woman. If they did get her heart going from whatever ounce of luck out there she has, she'll probably be nothing more than a veggie.

And THEN the ED that received her, as well as the physicians who tend to her as she was in her persistent vegetative state, would be sued for uber big bucks.

 

[Castro Viejo]

Yeah I don't think I'd offer to help either. Plus, as previously mentioned, what the hell am I gonna do? If you have a blade and a tube of some sort I can cric you but otherwise not much help I can provide.

Airplanes carry those plastic knives and, heck, the housing from your ball point pen could be a great way to establish a surgical airway.

Yeah right...

 

[InternDoc]

Death on a plance? that's NOTHING...

you should have seen "Snake on a plane"

 

[DrDawg]

With regard to counter-suing for libel and slander, why hasn't that reached a level where it's relatively commonplace? I'd think that'd be a great way to get back at those rats, but I read of isolated instances and that's about it.

Couple of months back, Surgery News had an article about an Orthopod who counter sued for slander. Apparently the orginal case was tossed out of on court and the lawyer brought it to another, thats when the Orthopod counter sued. Don't think this happens often.

 

[Faebinder]

Couple of months back, Surgery News had an article about an Orthopod who counter sued for slander. Apparently the orginal case was tossed out of on court and the lawyer brought it to another, thats when the Orthopod counter sued. Don't think this happens often.

Out of curiousity, how much would a countersuit for slander make money wise? Does anyone know?

 

[DrDawg]

all depends on how bad your feelings are hurt.

 

[MossPoh]

My dad (a doctor) was on a flight and one of the attendants comes and yelling "Is there a doctor on the flight?!". My mom nudges him to reply and he just looks around hoping someone else stands up. (A guy that turned out to be an ER doc does). My mom just gave him this scolding look and replied "F_ck that. I'm not getting sued. Besides, I'm a radiologist. Unless they have a CT on this plan the poor bastard is probably going to die. " If you knew my dad's personality this would beyond hilarious, because he never curses and is usually the first to help. Just him dropping an F bomb and not wanting to stand up was priceless.

 

[f_w]

Do they carry epinephrine pens? Do they carry insulin? Do they carry glucose shots?

Yes to all of them.

The FAA minimum for the in-flight kit is just that, a minimum. The legacy airlines carry pretty comprehensive kits.
I had to brake one of those open once and was suprised about the amount of stuff I found in those two midsize suitcases. And yes, I am a radiologist, but it didn't take a pulmonologist to figure out that a post-pneumonectomy patient who turns blue at a cabin altitude of 8000ft is probably suffering from hypoxia. Raising cabin pressure to 1000ft MSL (our destination altitude), a whiff of supplemental oxygen and a 'direct in' approach is all it took to fix that gentleman so he could go on to his hospice bed in Minneapolis.

The airline doesn't want you to perform heroics. They want someone more knowledgeable than a flight-attendant with CPR course to help them make a decision about flight diversion and interventions doable with on-board equipment.

 

[MedWiz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23327116/?GT1=10856

"A few minutes later, Desir, herself a nurse, said she was having trouble breathing and asked for oxygen[...] But a flight attendant twice refused her request"

Not sure if her being a nurse is actually relevant concerning that particular situation, it might
have some bearing if her profession was explicitly mentioned to back up her request for oxygen, as
would have been the case if relevant medical history was mentioned.

Regardless of the actual cause of death in this case and also regardless of whether or not administering
oxygen earlier might have helped improve the outcome of this situation, there are undoubtedly conceivable
scenarios where earliest administration of oxygen would be comparatively likely to improve the chances of a more positive outcome.

Thus it could be theoretically considered questionable why -apparently- the decision of administering oxygen or not, is
apparently left to the crew (medical advisory absent) without supporting tools/diagnostics.

In particular, because that decision doesn't seem to be directly backed up by medical diagnostics, such as those
that could for for example be provided by a pulse oximeter. Which may also yield the question whether or not a
pulse oximeter is generally available in an airliner's med kit, and if it isn't, why - given that it may help
assess a patient's health status under critical circumstances.

In any case, using a pulse oximeter would have also helped assess whether or not oxygen was successfully administered, thus possibly preventing speculations about first responders "trying out" multiple tanks.

 

[Substance]

Wow, that brings up a good point though, when it comes to the flight attendants making the call on what kind of treatment a passenger needs.

Sounds like American Airlines may have to reach a settlement.

 

[Pir8DeacDoc]

People die. It happens. There actually doesn't have to be someone to blame when a death occurs. Sometimes years of unhealthy living finally catch up with people. It will be a GD travesty if the doctors get sued in this case.

 

[Castro Viejo]

My dad (a doctor) was on a flight and one of the attendants comes and yelling "Is there a doctor on the flight?!". My mom nudges him to reply and he just looks around hoping someone else stands up. (A guy that turned out to be an ER doc does). My mom just gave him this scolding look and replied "F_ck that. I'm not getting sued. Besides, I'm a radiologist. Unless they have a CT on this plan the poor bastard is probably going to die. " If you knew my dad's personality this would beyond hilarious, because he never curses and is usually the first to help. Just him dropping an F bomb and not wanting to stand up was priceless.

Make sure that's on your application essay for why you want to be a doctor and how your dad serves as your inspiration.

 

[Rasengan]

Congradulations folks... you just re-affirmed my previously unstable conviction: "I will not stop to help anyone in medical distress, unless he is on my service." My license is more precious. Good luck with your MI/PE/CVA.

Actually, pretty much all you can do in the air is start oxygen. I dont think they even carry aspirin, they dont have tPA (let alone the system to instill it)... you're stuck giving O2 and CPR-- which anyone can do and in fact flight attendants should be trained to do (considering there could be flights without MDs on board)

Technology in medicine has become so advanced that really you can't do anything more on an airplane as an MD than someone who simply knows CPR can.

 

[edmadison]

Perhaps I can give some insight regarding the law issues.

First, the case we are discussing was an international flight and details regarding what laws apply are tricky in these situations because they depend on statutory law, treaties and international law. Let's just assume this was a domestic flight. There is an entire field of law called "conflict of law" which determines what state's law applies. It can actually be quite interesting if not arcane. What happens is that the plaintiff files suit somewhere. It could be where the plane took off or where it landed or where they thought it was when the "tort" occurred. Once the case is filed, the court determines whether or not is has jurisdiction (meaning can it hear the case) and venue (it has jurisdiction, but is it appropriate that it hear the case? -- could another court be a better pick). Now comes the fun part. Courts use their own rules to determine these matters, but on the merits of the case, the court must make a determination as to what law applies. The judge would look to the conflict of laws statutes and cases to determine what state's law applies. It is not uncommon for a court in one state to use the law of another state in making it's rulings.

Confused yet? Well add this in. When there are conflicts between residents of different states, the federal courts are often involved and they must determine what state's law is in effect. When I was a law clerk, we had a case involving a superfund site in Rhode Island. One party was a New Jersey corporation with a plant in Rhode Island, the other party was Illinois corporation. The case was filed in New Jersey, but the New Jersey federal court thought venue was more appropriate in Rhode Island where the pollution occurred. Since the case was originally filed in New Jersey, we used the law of New Jersey to settle the conflict of law issue which, in our opinion, said we should use the law of the State of Rhode Island.

Got all that? There's a reason that there are so many law books! In any event, the message here is that you just won't know what rules will be applied if you help out on an airplane because you don't know which state's laws will be applied.

On one other issues, suing someone for libel who has filed suit against you: Several years ago, I extensively researched this issue for a client in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At that time and in Massachusetts, there was protection from libel and slander for court pleadings. Thus, an attorney filing suit based on these could be sanctioned. That is why this is rare. Of course if they hold a press conference stating allegations not in the court filings, that's another story. Also, a prior poster mentioned a malpractice suit against the plaintiff's attorney. Malpractice is only appropriate for someone who engaged the attorney's services, thus an aggrieved defendant would have no grounds to sue.

I hope that clears some of this up

Ed

 

[Faebinder]

Perhaps I can give some insight regarding the law issues.

First, the case we are discussing was an international flight and details regarding what laws apply are tricky in these situations because they depend on statutory law, treaties and international law. Let's just assume this was a domestic flight. There is an entire field of law called "conflict of law" which determines what state's law applies. It can actually be quite interesting if not arcane. What happens is that the plaintiff files suit somewhere. It could be where the plane took off or where it landed or where they thought it was when the "tort" occurred. Once the case is filed, the court determines whether or not is has jurisdiction (meaning can it hear the case) and venue (it has jurisdiction, but is it appropriate that it hear the case? -- could another court be a better pick). Now comes the fun part. Courts use their own rules to determine these matters, but on the merits of the case, the court must make a determination as to what law applies. The judge would look to the conflict of laws statutes and cases to determine what state's law applies. It is not uncommon for a court in one state to use the law of another state in making it's rulings.

Confused yet? Well add this in. When there are conflicts between residents of different states, the federal courts are often involved and they must determine what state's law is in effect. When I was a law clerk, we had a case involving a superfund site in Rhode Island. One party was a New Jersey corporation with a plant in Rhode Island, the other party was Illinois corporation. The case was filed in New Jersey, but the New Jersey federal court thought venue was more appropriate in Rhode Island where the pollution occurred. Since the case was originally filed in New Jersey, we used the law of New Jersey to settle the conflict of law issue which, in our opinion, said we should use the law of the State of Rhode Island.

Got all that? There's a reason that there are so many law books! In any event, the message here is that you just won't know what rules will be applied if you help out on an airplane because you don't know which state's laws will be applied.

On one other issues, suing someone for libel who has filed suit against you: Several years ago, I extensively researched this issue for a client in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At that time and in Massachusetts, there was protection from libel and slander for court pleadings. Thus, an attorney filing suit based on these could be sanctioned. That is why this is rare. Of course if they hold a press conference stating allegations not in the court filings, that's another story. Also, a prior poster mentioned a malpractice suit against the plaintiff's attorney. Malpractice is only appropriate for someone who engaged the attorney's services, thus an aggrieved defendant would have no grounds to sue.

I hope that clears some of this up

Ed

Yes it does...

It basically said to me "Get an ipod like Castro or just take your laptop with head phones. Make sure the movie you are watching is interesting."

 

[Castro Viejo]

Perhaps I can give some insight regarding the law issues.

First, the case we are discussing was an international flight and details regarding what laws apply are tricky in these situations because they depend on statutory law, treaties and international law. Let's just assume this was a domestic flight. There is an entire field of law called "conflict of law" which determines what state's law applies. It can actually be quite interesting if not arcane. What happens is that the plaintiff files suit somewhere. It could be where the plane took off or where it landed or where they thought it was when the "tort" occurred. Once the case is filed, the court determines whether or not is has jurisdiction (meaning can it hear the case) and venue (it has jurisdiction, but is it appropriate that it hear the case? -- could another court be a better pick). Now comes the fun part. Courts use their own rules to determine these matters, but on the merits of the case, the court must make a determination as to what law applies. The judge would look to the conflict of laws statutes and cases to determine what state's law applies. It is not uncommon for a court in one state to use the law of another state in making it's rulings.

Confused yet? Well add this in. When there are conflicts between residents of different states, the federal courts are often involved and they must determine what state's law is in effect. When I was a law clerk, we had a case involving a superfund site in Rhode Island. One party was a New Jersey corporation with a plant in Rhode Island, the other party was Illinois corporation. The case was filed in New Jersey, but the New Jersey federal court thought venue was more appropriate in Rhode Island where the pollution occurred. Since the case was originally filed in New Jersey, we used the law of New Jersey to settle the conflict of law issue which, in our opinion, said we should use the law of the State of Rhode Island.

Got all that? There's a reason that there are so many law books! In any event, the message here is that you just won't know what rules will be applied if you help out on an airplane because you don't know which state's laws will be applied.

On one other issues, suing someone for libel who has filed suit against you: Several years ago, I extensively researched this issue for a client in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At that time and in Massachusetts, there was protection from libel and slander for court pleadings. Thus, an attorney filing suit based on these could be sanctioned. That is why this is rare. Of course if they hold a press conference stating allegations not in the court filings, that's another story. Also, a prior poster mentioned a malpractice suit against the plaintiff's attorney. Malpractice is only appropriate for someone who engaged the attorney's services, thus an aggrieved defendant would have no grounds to sue.

I hope that clears some of this up

Ed

Thank you, Ed, for providing that explanation of conflict of law and other such legal mumbo jumboness.

And, no offense to you kind sir, but gentlemen: THIS IS WHY LAWYERS SUCK.

 

[Castro Viejo]

It basically said to me "Get an ipod like Castro or just take your laptop with head phones. Make sure the movie you are watching is interesting."

Word up!

 

[DrDawg]

Gosh this thread has really made me look forward to my flight to Hawai'i next month.

 

[Castro Viejo]

Gosh this thread has really made me look forward to my flight to Hawai'i next month.

I'm flying to Vegas next week. I feel sorry for the poor schmoe on my flight who decides to have chest pain, dizzyness, seizure, stroke-like symptoms, or a ruptured aneurysm.

But never fear... There's always an ancillary person somewhere who happens to be an LPN -- who I'd assume falls into the "medical professional" category -- who will "control the situation." He'll probably give the guy with chest pain/dizzyness/seizure/stroke-like symptoms/ruptured aneurysm all the same initial "life-saving" maneuver: the precordial thump.

Why? He saw it in Star Trek V once when Bones tried to save a Klingon with the "Damn it!" <PRECORDIAL THUMP> "DAMN IT!" <THUMP> <THUMP> "Jim, his anatomy is so strange. I don't know what the f_ck is going on!" Yeah, and apparently ACLS changes in the year 2500.

And the other Klingons are standing around like, "WTF? Bahk tahka? Tahk tahk bahk lahka? Wahka wahka Silly Bastard." ("WTF? What is Whitey doing thumping on that guys chest? Doesn't 'the doctor' know our heart is in our buttocks? Silly bastard.")

And, of course, Kirk and Bones stand trial for the murder of this Klingon. Just like a malpractice lawsuit in 2008 Earth. I'm sure by 2500 whatever the hell it is in Star Trek physicians like Bones will be pretty used to the malpractice thing. Or maybe it'll be like the Klingon court and, like Kirk and Bones, we'll all be just sentenced to hard labor at some Siberian-like camp where Sade will try to seduce us.

Gene Roddenbury was a frickin' genius!

Oh God... I need to get some sleep.

 

[Faebinder]

I'm flying to Vegas next week. I feel sorry for the poor schmoe on my flight who decides to have chest pain, dizzyness, seizure, stroke-like symptoms, or a ruptured aneurysm.

But never fear... There's always an ancillary person somewhere who happens to be an LPN -- who I'd assume falls into the "medical professional" category -- who will "control the situation." He'll probably give the guy with chest pain/dizzyness/seizure/stroke-like symptoms/ruptured aneurysm all the same initial "life-saving" maneuver: the precordial thump.

Why? He saw it in Star Trek V once when Bones tried to save a Klingon with the "Damn it!" <PRECORDIAL THUMP> "DAMN IT!" <THUMP> <THUMP> "Jim, his anatomy is so strange. I don't know what the f_ck is going on!" Yeah, and apparently ACLS changes in the year 2500.

And the other Klingons are standing around like, "WTF? Bahk tahka? Tahk tahk bahk lahka? Wahka wahka Silly Bastard." ("WTF? What is Whitey doing thumping on that guys chest? Doesn't 'the doctor' know our heart is in our buttocks? Silly bastard.")

And, of course, Kirk and Bones stand trial for the murder of this Klingon. Just like a malpractice lawsuit in 2008 Earth. I'm sure by 2500 whatever the hell it is in Star Trek physicians like Bones will be pretty used to the malpractice thing. Or maybe it'll be like the Klingon court and, like Kirk and Bones, we'll all be just sentenced to hard labor at some Siberian-like camp where Sade will try to seduce us.

Gene Roddenbury was a frickin' genius!

Oh God... I need to get some sleep.

I'm not a Star Trek fan but...

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Found this.

Sec 5 reads:

SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.
(a) LIABILITY OF AIR CARRIERS.&#8212;An air carrier shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the performance of the air carrier in obtaining or attempting to obtain the assistance of a passenger in an inflight medical emergency, or out of the acts or omissions of the passenger rendering the assistance, if the passenger is not an employee or agent of the carrier and the carrier in good faith
believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.
(b) LIABILITY OF INDIVIDUALS.&#8212;An individual shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the individual in providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of an in-flight medical emergency unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Although this seems pretty clear -- if you help out, you are immunized against all actions in Fed and State court -- I'm sure there's some way to get around it.

 

[Faebinder]

Found this.

Sec 5 reads:


Although this seems pretty clear -- if you help out, you are immunized against all actions in Fed and State court -- I'm sure there's some way to get around it.

APD, the last line in your quote says it all! "unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct."

That's like saying, the patient died uneventfully. Who determines what's gross negligance? Willful misconduct? A bunch of people who never went to med school watching you do something? Why even put that statement in the law? We all know that someone with "gross" negligence or "willful" misconduct should be prosecuted.

(So, when avoiding the yells for medical help by a panicking stewardess, do you guys think an ipod is better than watching a movie on the laptop? Do you think watching scrubs will give you away?)

 

[f_w]

Why even put that statement in the law? We all know that someone with "gross" negligence or "willful" misconduct should be prosecuted.

Maybe because the supreme court requires this language in any type of federal law that immunizes against liability ? (it is language you will find in most laws that exempt someone or something from liability. you can't deny a victim of willful conduct their 'day in court')

'Gross negligence' in medical cases is established as an concept through precedent. It comes down to what a 'prudent physician of similar qualification' would have done in the same situation or whether what you did is just contrary to anything ever taught to you in school. Again, nobody expects a pathologist to do an emergency thoracotomy, but if you do what is reasonable, you are going to be covered under this law (and any other good samaritan act for that matter).

This 'don't help because you are going to get sued' hysteria is being thrown around like it is a fact. I know there are a couple of lawyers floating around here, maybe one of them could dig up some precedent where someone was successfully sued since 1998 under penetration of the 'medical assistance on planes act'.

 

[Tired]

Is there any legal requirement for a physician to respond to an emergency like this?

Anyone who starts talking about "ethical mandate" gets smacked.