Tuesday was the annual Lobby Day for the state's trial lawyers, the day more than 100 plaintiffs' attorneys visit legislative offices to remind lawmakers that the trial lawyers need more opportunities to file and win lawsuits - and certainly do not like any ideas that might limit their ability to do so.
A number of bills in the latter category were scheduled for Tuesday, presumably so legislators supported by personal injury attorneys could kill legal reform bills while the lawyers were in the hearing rooms.
The fate of one such bill really demonstrated the trial lawyers' single-mindedness and the support it enjoys in Sacramento. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) presented a bill, SB 1281, to further encourage businesses and building owners to install automatic external defibrillators. AEDs are life-savers used to administer an electric shock through the chest wall to the heart after someone suffers cardiac arrest. Designed to be used by almost anyone in an emergency, they use built-in computers assess the patient's heart rhythm, determine whether the person is in cardiac arrest, and signal whether to administer the shock. Audible cues guide the user through the process.
Dr. James Dunford, the medical director of the city of San Diego, a professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at UCSD Medical Center, and the president of the Greater San Diego Board of the American Heart Association, testified that AEDs are the only thing standing between a person who goes into cardiac arrest and almost certain death.
Dunford, who in 2000 helped found San Diego Project Heart Beat, a program designed to increase the use of AEDs, noted that the survival rate without an AED is just 6 percent, but the survival rate jumps to 50 percent or more if there's a public defibrillator program in place. "The only thing that is going to make a difference is the shock. CPR is merely a bridge to hold the person until the shock arrives" he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Current law provides building owners and people who use the devices when someone goes into cardiac arrest limited immunity from being sued. However, the law mandates a number of requirements that must be met, including developing a written plan describing the procedures to be used, training a fixed number of employees or tenants on how to use them, and checking them every 30 days to make sure they are in good working order. Failure to comply with any one of these requirements would remove the limited liability protection and open the door for a lawsuit.
The not-surprising result: many property owners are reluctant to buy and install AEDs because they don't want to open yet another avenue for being sued.
Jan Ogar, representing the Emergency Nurses Association, said AEDs need to be as ubiquitous as fire extinguishers in public buildings, but that too many companies, non-profits, churches and other groups are fearful of liability, a point confirmed by Matt Hargrove of the California Business Properties Association.
A long list of people echoed their support, including a man whose life was saved by the device, his wife, nurses, the California Hospital Association, the American College of Cardiology, the California Medical Association, the League of California Cities, and a representative of church groups.
A slam dunk? Not so fast. It's the trial lawyers' Lobby Day, remember.
Testifying against the bill was John Montevideo, a Santa Ana trial lawyer and president-elect of their lobbying group, who piously proclaimed that of course trial lawyers support AEDs but said without proper training and maintenance, the devices may not be as effective as they could be. Then he got to the main point: "This bill is a blanket immunity bill. The law as it stands grants a qualified immunity...why should that be changed?"
His point was echoed by Greg Landin, a paramedic who also owns a company that makes money training people and businesses in the use of AEDs, CPR, and other emergency rescue procedures. Ironically, Landin conceded the supporters' point, saying it was "very possible" that more businesses would install AEDs if the threat of liability was eliminated, but he said the training that his company offers is critical.
Senator Padilla tried to refocus the committee members by pointing out that even if people aren't trained, the devices are nearly foolproof and can't possibly hurt anyone since the patient is almost certainly going to die without one. And again, he pointed out that even if some AEDs weren't as well maintained as everyone would like, having them available greatly increases the chances that more people who go into cardiac arrest will live.
But committee Democrats - the Chair, Ellen Corbett of San Leandro, and Mark Leno of San Francisco and Loni Hancock of Berkeley - agreed with the trial lawyers.
"I do believe that you are asking us a very serious question today, and that is whether we allow for some liability in cases where people have not felt it's important to be trained and maintain their devices," Corbett told Padilla.
That settled, the committee voted 3-1 to kill the bill, even with last-minute amendments Padilla offered to try and mollify the trial lawyers.
The moral of the story? Better hope you don't go into cardiac arrest in a store or office building whose owner decided quite appropriately that the risk of facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit outweighed buying life-saving devices and making sure that every step of the legal requirements were followed to the letter.
