قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The employer had no obligation to use AED to help the employee

The employer had no obligation to use AED to help the employee



The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed a court's denial of a proposal to reject the employee's claim for employee compensation as a result of her employer's failure to use his automatic external defibrillator when she collapsed.

In Chaney v. Team Technologies Inc ., The State Supreme Court held on Thursday in Knoxville that the employer had no obligation to use his AED to assist the employee in a medical emergency and was not responsible for labor competence. .

In March 2013, employed by Team Technologies Inc. in Morristown, Tennessee, collapsed at work due to a medical condition that was not related to her employment. Her heart stopped beating and she couldn't breathe anymore. The employer requested medical help, but did not use the AED it had acquired to help her. Medical respondents revived the worker, but she suffered from a permanent brain injury caused by oxygen deficiency.

In January 201

5, she sued Team Technologies, who applied for compensation for damages allegedly due to the employer not using her AED. She argued that its failure to use AED and train or hire an employee who could use the technology delayed revival efforts and caused her to maintain brain damage. Team Technologies moved to reject its complaint on the grounds that her injury was not related to her employment and that an employer had no statutory or joint right to use an acquired AED.

A court of trial rejected Team Technologies' movement, but granted its position to appeal. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the court's decision and terminated the dismissal case. At the ruling of the decision, the Court examined its 1977 holding in Vanderbilt University v. Russell who adopted a "rule of emergency" after finding that Tennissons Labor Compensation Act is a cure for disability leading to the employer's failure to provide assistance to an employee who have suffered an illness or injury in connection with, but not as a result of, employment.

The Court argued that there is no dispute that the employee's injury occurred during her employment and that the employer was required to provide reasonable medical assistance. However, the Court noted that the emergency rule requires an employer to provide "reasonable" help, not "any and all medical assistance".

While the employee claimed that the court would extend its holding of the emergency rule to require an employer to use an acquired AED, the Court found that Tedland's AED Statute – while encouraging companies to acquire AEDs – does not require companies to buy them or use AEDs if they were acquired.

The court reconsidered the denial of the trial by Team Technologies to the dismissal and invoked the case of a cancellation order. The court also assessed the cost of the appeal to the employee.

Team Technologies refused to comment on the case.

                    


Source link