WN pax dies from heart attack; defib not used at first b/c his chest was "too hairy"

F

FWAAA

Veteran
Jan 5, 2003
10,249
3,893
From the Daily Mail:
 


[SIZE=1.2em]A Southwest Airlines flight attendant allegedly initially refused to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) on a passenger due to his chest hair.[/SIZE]
 
KOAT reported that Jack Jordan, 62, suffered a heart attack on the plane. 
 
Spouse Caroline Jordan, who was traveling with him, told the affiliate station both a nurse and physical therapist tried using CPR - and that a flight attendant dismissed a third passenger who pointed out the defibrillator.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738864/Southwest-Airlines-flight-attendant-says-defibrillator-t-used-passenger-suffering-heart-attack-chest-hair.html#ixzz3BxQ9ayaV
 
From an ABQ TV station:
 


KOAT's Dr. Barry Ramo said reacting to an emergency quickly can be the difference between life and death, and chest hair is rarely a factor with a defibrillator not working.
 
Ramo's staff at the Heart Institute said there are razors and scissors included with the devices to shave hair and cut clothing and jewelry. Caroline Jordan said for her husband, it was too late.
 
A Southwest Airlines spokeswoman said the airline is looking into the incident.
Click to expand...
http://www.koat.com/news/widow-defibrillator-not-used-because-of-husbands-hairy-chest/27780774#ixzz3BzBCAyof
 
Good to know that WN is "looking into the incident."    
 
Lesson to all the men (and women) out there - if you're going to suffer a heart attack on a plane, make sure you've shaved your chest.   
 
All the AED kits contain a razor to use if necessary. I would have slapped it on anyway. What's the worst case? The guy dies?
 
This is like the story I heard about the first AED training class for f/as at AA.  It was being taught by the AA Medical Director.  One f/a said, "Well, you'll never get me to use that thing."  The MD asked why.  She hesitated and stuttered out, "Well, I might, uh"  MD:  "Hurt the passenger?"  F/A:  "Yes."  MD:  "Ma'am, when the presenting symptom is death, there's no where to go but up."
 
Glenn is right.  Every kit (at least at AA)  contains a safety razor specifically for the purpose of removing excess body hair in the areas where the pads are placed.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
Eventually, they found the razor and shaved his chest, but his widow is claiming (naturally) that they waited too long and that's why he expired.   
 
AED's only work in about 70% of all heart attacks, regardless of how long it took to get it set up to shock him.

It would be interesting to see WN's response.
 
you won't see one. WN knows full well this case will go to court.

Unless the FA was specifically trained in making a determination of whether to use an AED or not or the factors that determine its success, WN will likely be found to be negligent if there are people who will testify that what the FA said actually occurred.
 
Yeah, not so sure about being able to have a negligence charge stick, WT.

Here's some case law to help you understand that having an AED available doesn't carry forward liability if an employee fails to use it:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/225226/Professional+Negligence/Florida+Appellate+Court+Holds+School+District+Has+No+Affirmative+Duty+To+Use+Aeds+At+Athletic+Events

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2013/02/gyms-must-have-but-need-not-use-defibrillators-ny-high-court-rules/

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act (1998) mandated the installation of the AED's, and protects non-employees from liability in the use or non-use of the AED and EMK, but it's silent on the issue of whether or not there's a duty to act on the part of an employee.

If the law doesn't contain an explicit duty to act, my uninformed guess is that there's no implied liability.

Come up with some statutory language which mandates the use of an AED onboard an aircraft when it is present, and maybe I'll change my mind.

Until then, my guess is WN won't let the case go to court. They'll probably settle, even though it wasn't the airline's fault this guy went into sudden cardiac arrest (which by itself has a really, really low discharge rate even when an AED is administered within the first 10 minutes from onset).

If it did go to court, it would be difficult on the part of the widow to prove negligence, especially since there were two trained and licensed medical personnel responding.

The fact that the FA deferred to trained medical personnel may even absolve WN and the flight attendant's decision to some degree, if not entirely.
 
The issue is not whether a FA used it or not, but I believe FA are trained to use it.

they aren't the general public. FAs have FAA approved training.

Further, the issue is whether the FA said it wasn't worth it or that he/she made any statement about the success or failure of the ability of the system to work.

That is the charge the widow made and that is undoubtedly the issue that will be the focus of the case.
 
 There is no obligation under Federal law to provide medical assistance to passengers.  The FAA does not have the authority to require employees to provide assistance or to defend sued for acts or omissions in the performance of duties.
 
From the FAA directive.
 
once again, the issue is not that the FA did or not do CPR or use the AED.

the issue, if the case goes to court, will be if the FA said or did anything that delayed or inhibited the use of the AED.

If her/his comment that was reported regarding his chest being too hairy is true, then that could be the problem.
It is doubtful, like most of these cases, that we will know the outcome of these cases since it will likely drag out for years.

I am not saying that what was said in the article is accurate but if the article is correct, that is where the legal issue arises.

I completely agree that FAs are not obligated to provide health care services.
 
Are you really suggesting that that two trained and licensed medical professionals would be taking life saving advice from the person who served them drinks a few minutes earlier?...

If this had happened on a DL flight, I can only imagine you'd be solidly backing the language from the FAA's directive.

If the directive states what DTPGTP posted, then it appears there's no duty to act, and WN can request (and probably receive) summary judgement and have it tossed.
 
I don't know what went on and DL has nothing to do with it; you are the only one that has mentioned any other airline other than DL.

again, there is no doubt about whether FAs are REQUIRED to provide life saving measures.

But the issue, since you didn't get it the first 3 times, is whether the FA said or did anything that impeded or inhibited the ability of anyone else to save the man's life.

If he/she didn't provide the equipment, did not acknowledge what was in the kit (and I know that she/he knows what is in the kit), or in any way delaydd or provided reason for anyone else to respond, she could be personally liable as could WN.

There is a big difference from being a passerby who chooses not to get involved and in impeding to delaying those who can help.

and given that many AEDs have the ability to record the event, the FA could potentially have provided cover for herself if she had allowed the equipment to be used; if the man did not have an arrhythmia that the AED could treat, then there would have been no doubt as to whether the AED could have been helpful

the inability of AEDs to treat certain patients is because a certain percent have no cardio-electrical activity and an AED cannot help. Only more advance treatment can help those people.
 
So, now the flight attendant was impeding the two first-responders from using the AED?...

If you read the statement from WN, it says the AED was used, was found to be ineffective, and that they continued CPR.

Everyone dies of something. This guy had SCA at age 62, and some lawyer convinced the widow that she can try to hold someone else responsible. Sad.
 
of course WN will say that they did everything correct.

If you read the charge from the wife, she indicated there was a delay in using the AED.

Again, I wasn't there and am not trying to hold the trial online.

But if the wife's charges have any merit and if the WN FA actually did make the statement that there might not be any value of using the AED because of the man's hairy chest, there might be legal problems, esp. if she delayed in providing all of the resources any willing bystanders were willing to do.

There is a window for which ANY medical treatment has to be provided in order to be effective. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that time matters, esp. in treating cardiac arrest.

feel free to argue if you wish but it's pretty clear what the potential issue is.

If the lawyer thinks there is a case, they will push it and WN can defend its actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top