€300k settlement after family of woman who died at work ...

Calahonda52

€300k settlement after family of woman who died at work claim defibrillator didn't work

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0421/1211286-defibrillator-damages/

Interesting that the case was against the manufacturer

The case was taken against HSS Management Ltd trading as Heart Safety Solutions (HSS) and Heartsine Technologies Ltd, respectively the supplier and manufacturer of the defibrillator.

An employer I know has had them taken off site this morning as the next case, if not phase two of this one, will be against employers.

If there's no requirement to have them, then it's unsurprising employers would get rid of them.

jhegarty

Time for all the defibrillator projects around the county to check their insurance.

blanch152

This will result in less defibrillators being rolled out, in the same way that other medical compensation cases have affected the health service.

riffmongous

Calahonda52 wrote: »

An employer I know has had them taken off site this morning as the next case, if not phase two of this one, will be against employers

Probably not, there's not enough information to go on from the article, but generally a defibrillator carries out regular self tests and should be checked every month or so by the person responsible too. Most general use ones will have an inbuilt checker that will tell the user if there is a problem. There's also a need for the device to be checked by a professional technician from the company once per year too.

If these tests are passed you are assuming it's going to work, if it was recently checked and then all of a sudden you need to use it and it won't work, then yeah the manufacturer needs to be brought to account.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

If there's no requirement to have them, then it's unsurprising employers would get rid of them.

You should run from any employer who does that, if they value the lives of their employees so lowly. A working defi is literally the difference between life and death

thomas 123

You buy these and they are commissioned and inspected regularly id imagine.(anyone confirm?)

If it didn’t work it failed and may have cost this lady her life. That’s on the company who sold it or whoever was maintaining it in my opinion.

A bit like a life jacket not inflating or a parachute not opening - of course when it’s not actually the fault of the user.

Akesh

Just shows what state this country is in. The legal system is not fit for purpose. How many cases like this are settled before facts are established due to cost?

Alun

riffmongous wrote: »

Probably not, there's not enough information to go on from the article, ...

Exactly. It only says the family of the deceased claimed it wasn't working, but absolutely no details given of how they came to this conclusion. Did it simply not power up at all, or did it fail to shock the patient when operated?

These things are, generally speaking, fairly foolproof and walk the user through the steps necessary to operate them with voice prompts etc. and there are all kinds of checks to make sure, for example, that the pads are attached in the right place, but I wouldn't like to say they're 100% fool proof. Failure to remove metal jewellery, piercings, metal bra wires, failure to ascertain if a pacemaker is fitted, someone touching the patient when giving a shock etc. can all have consequences for their efficacy.

Also, most organizations where they're installed will have had training sessions for some members of staff in how to operate the particular device installed there along with training on giving CPR which is a vital part of the whole treatment. A defibrillator alone and in isolation without correct CPR will be of no use at all.

thomas 123

Alun wrote: »

Exactly. It only says the family of the deceased claimed it wasn't working, but absolutely no details given of how they came to this conclusion. Did it simply not power up at all, or did it fail to shock the patient when operated?

These things are, generally speaking, fairly foolproof and walk the user through the steps necessary to operate them with voice prompts etc. and there are all kinds of checks to make sure, for example, that the pads are attached in the right place, but I wouldn't like to say they're 100% fool proof. Failure to remove metal jewellery, piercings, metal bra wires, failure to ascertain if a pacemaker is fitted, someone touching the patient when giving a shock etc. can all have consequences for their efficacy.

Also, most organizations where they're installed will have had training sessions for some members of staff in how to operate the particular device installed there along with training on giving CPR which is a vital part of the whole treatment. A defibrillator alone and in isolation without correct CPR will be of no use at all.

I don't buy this, their reputation may be worth a bit more than 300k to be fair. I’d think settlement out of court is to put this to bed ASAP.

The lack of apology does not mean it they were not at fault.

They would have at least put it out their somehow that it was working as expected.

suicide_circus

So had there been no defibrillator and she had died, there would have been no 300k settlement....hmmm

Tails142

I was involved in buying one of these for work, think it was around €1000 maybe €2000, just gets battery replaced every now and again as far as I know. I'm just an employee but I know this type of case will make it harder justifying them being brought into workplaces due to the fact they're now seen as a liability if the thing doesn't bloody work for some reason.

300k is a big settlement, gonna have to sell a lot of defibrillators to cover that cost, I'm guessing that company will just go bust?

If I remember correctly only a small percent of 'heart attacks' will actually respond to a defib. We never get the full story in these court reports, maybe there was a blatant manufacturing defect the company is responsible for, either way not a great day for all concerned, including the poor soul who passed.

riffmongous

suicide_circus wrote: »

So had there been no defibrillator and she had died, there would have been no 300k settlement....hmmm

Maybe she wouldn't have died if there hasn't been a defibrillator though.. imagine there's a defi in your building and one in the police station nearby. You go get the one in your building set it up within 3/4 minutes then find out it doesn't work, by the time you get to the other one and set it up it's over 10 minutes and severe brain damage has occurred. If there isn't one in your building and you go straight to the station you could get it back just in time to have a chance to save her life. A heart stoppage is incredibly time critical, which is why a device that claims it's working when it isn't is deadly.

listermint

But the case here was against the supplier though not the work place. Alot of assumptions in here. How do we know there want a service rental agreement in place and the supplier simply hadn't done what they said they would do.

DublinCJM

My oul fella had a heart attack on a golf course in Kerry.

They had a defib, but the battery was dead.

Will never know if it had been working would it have saved his life, but it pains me to think he may have been saved if the defib had been working.

Seems a right waste having the equipment, but not having regular checks to see it's working properly.

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there's no requirement to have them, then it's unsurprising employers would get rid of them.

Ever had a colleague have a heart attack in your office?

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ever had a colleague have a heart attack in your office?

I'm making a statement, not giving an opinion on whether it's right or wrong.

Alun

riffmongous wrote: »

Maybe she wouldn't have died if there hasn't been a defibrillator though.. imagine there's a defi in your building and one in the police station nearby. You go get the one in your building set it up within 3/4 minutes then find out it doesn't work, by the time you get to the other one and set it up it's over 10 minutes and severe brain damage has occurred. If there isn't one in your building and you go straight to the station you could get it back just in time to have a chance to save her life. A heart stoppage is incredibly time critical, which is why a device that claims it's working when it isn't is deadly.

You should never, ever be reliant solely on an AED (defibrillator). CPR is always the first line of attack in the case of cardiac arrest, and by doing this you're ensuring the brain gets a supply of oxygen. While AED's are a great idea they're not a universal panacea, and some basic first aid knowledge including CPR is as important, if not more so.

In other words, if you're faffing around looking for an AED for 10 minutes leaving the poor patient on the ground you're doing it wrong.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ever had a colleague have a heart attack in your office?

Ever seen a man eat his own head?

djan

Madness really. From a medical perspective, a relatively small amount of heart attack type complications can be stabilised by a portable defib. While there may be a case made if the defib were to provably cause harm to someone, just because the person isn't brought back doesn't mean the defib was faulty.

As stated above, it has been proven that immediate CPR leads to much more favourable outcomes than defibs.

GreeBo

riffmongous wrote: »

Probably not, there's not enough information to go on from the article, but generally a defibrillator carries out regular self tests and should be checked every month or so by the person responsible too. Most general use ones will have an inbuilt checker that will tell the user if there is a problem. There's also a need for the device to be checked by a professional technician from the company once per year too.

If these tests are passed you are assuming it's going to work, if it was recently checked and then all of a sudden you need to use it and it won't work, then yeah the manufacturer needs to be brought to account.

+1
I would see this as no different than a smoke alarm, extinguisher or sprinklers.

Now if the employer wasn't maintaining them then thats a different issue.

GreeBo

riffmongous wrote: »

Maybe she wouldn't have died if there hasn't been a defibrillator though.. imagine there's a defi in your building and one in the police station nearby. You go get the one in your building set it up within 3/4 minutes then find out it doesn't work, by the time you get to the other one and set it up it's over 10 minutes and severe brain damage has occurred. If there isn't one in your building and you go straight to the station you could get it back just in time to have a chance to save her life. A heart stoppage is incredibly time critical, which is why a device that claims it's working when it isn't is deadly.

The thing is though that there was one. The company had gone out of their way to install one, so any comparisons that involve not having one are pointless.

riffmongous

Alun wrote: »

You should never, ever be reliant solely on an AED (defibrillator). CPR is always the first line of attack in the case of cardiac arrest, and by doing this you're ensuring the brain gets a supply of oxygen. While AED's are a great idea they're not a universal panacea, and some basic first aid knowledge including CPR is as important, if not more so.

That makes no difference to the above scenario, it's from the pov of a person going to get one. If you are on your own you won't be able to go get one anyway.

CPR will help keep some oxygen flowing to the brain and improve the chance of a successful defibrillation, yes but a quick defibrillation in addition will dramatically increase your chances of survival compared to CPR alone.

riffmongous

djan wrote: »

Madness really. From a medical perspective, a relatively small amount of heart attack type complications can be stabilised by a portable defib. While there may be a case made if the defib were to provably cause harm to someone, just because the person isn't brought back doesn't mean the defib was faulty.

As stated above, it has been proven that immediate CPR leads to much more favourable outcomes than defibs.

Source for this. Bearing in my that a defi wouldn't be used without CPR in a work setting

riffmongous

GreeBo wrote: »

The thing is though that there was one. The company had gone out of their way to install one, so any comparisons that involve not having one are pointless.

Reread the post it's replying to, it's saying what if there wasn't one

For fire extinguishers, is there not a company that are approved, certified, etc. to check on them and make sure they're working every year or two? Like an NCT for fire extinguishers?

I'd have assumed that the same was true of defibrillators.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

For fire extinguishers, is there not a company that are approved, certified, etc. to check on them and make sure they're working every year or two? Like an NCT for fire extinguishers?

I'd have assumed that the same was true of defibrillators.

yeah but that would involve spending money.

GreeBo

riffmongous wrote: »

Reread the post it's replying to, it's saying what if there wasn't one

I did read it.
Its effectively saying that not having one would be better for the company.
and I'm saying that you cannot compare not having one to having one that is defective.

The company deliberately went out of their way to install one.

BTW i was agreeing with the point in your post!

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

For fire extinguishers, is there not a company that are approved, certified, etc. to check on them and make sure they're working every year or two? Like an NCT for fire extinguishers?

I'd have assumed that the same was true of defibrillators.

Hell you need it for every piece of electrical equipment these days!

riffmongous

GreeBo wrote: »

I did read it.
Its effectively saying that not having one would be better for the company.
and I'm saying that you cannot compare not having one to having one that is defective.

The company deliberately went out of their way to install one.

BTW i was agreeing with the point in your post!

Ah sorry, I didn't realise you were agreeing

Overheal

Akesh wrote: »

Just shows what state this country is in. The legal system is not fit for purpose. How many cases like this are settled before facts are established due to cost?

Isn’t it better if both parties wish to settle out of court? It alleviates time and resource expenditures from the court system. Imagine, people settling their differences without having to tie up a judge or jury.