What happens if I am going all-out on my favorite treadmill at my favorite fitness center, and I suddenly collapse from an irregular heartbeat — maybe having a heart attack?
Does the fitness center have a duty to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) on me under the Physical Fitness Facility Medical Emergency Preparedness Act (FPD Act) and the Automated External Defibrillator Act (AED Act), and can the non-use of the AED create liability for the facility under those laws?
You bet your sweet, clogged arteries they do. So said the Illinois Supreme Court recently.
An AED is a device that can diagnose a rapid, irregular heartbeat, often triggered by a heart attack. It treats the ‘ole ticker through electrical therapy to get the ticker ticking again with more regularity.
The FPD Act provides that such facilities are not liable for money claims as a result of any “act or omission” involving the use of an AED in an emergency situation, except for willful or wanton misconduct, if the requirements of this act are met.
The AED Act require fitness joints to have at least one AED on the premises, personnel trained to use them and a plan for their use.
The case before the Supremes arose from a patron who suffered a cardiac issue ultimately causing brain damage. The patron’s spouse sued the facility claiming no AED was administered by the facility’s personnel at all and that such failure amounted to willful and wanton misconduct (i.e., recklessness). The facility argued the statute did not say that a fitness facility has a duty to apply a defibrillator at all.
This is a classic case of what courts do — interpret the law. In this case, interpreting statutes passed by the Illinois General Assembly. In so interpreting the statutes, the Supremes defibrillated the defense’s creative argument.
The FPD statute said lawsuits can be had if the claimant can prove willful and wanton conduct in any act “or omission” regarding an AED. “Omission,” noted the court, clearly means a failure to act.
If one were to read the laws as not imposing any duty to administer the AED in a crisis, said the court, such interpretation would render the laws absurd and ineffectual because it would frustrate the expressed purpose of the statutory scheme — which is to protect patrons of fitness facilities and save lives by encouraging the proper use of AEDs.
In other words, why would the legislature make a facility have AEDs; make them have trained personnel to use the AEDs; and make them have a plan for using the AEDs, if the facility was never obligated to attempt to use them in a cardiac crisis?
Otherwise, during a heart attack, the highly trained defibrillator folks would just stand around fibrillating their thumbs when waiting for the ambulance to arrive while the pulmonary-challenged patron writhes on the floor and the AED rests comfortably on the shelf.
So, the next time you go to your favorite fitness facility to obsessively pedal that compulsively stationary bike, know that those polo-shirted defibrillator A-team guys and gals have a duty to pedal your sternum with the defib when your ticker is striking midnight.
