A New York state court judge has ruled for a basketball facility in Yonkers, New York, which was sued by the estate of a 31-year-old man who collapsed while playing basketball.
The decedent joined a group of friends at the basketball court at Hooperstown for a pickup game.
During the course of the game, the decedent suddenly collapsed.
While Hooperstown was not a health club, it had automated external defibrillators (AEDs) on-site, and its employees were trained on their use. When the employees responded to the emergency, they observed that the decedent was still breathing, thus, not requiring the use of the AED. Employees called 911, and City Emergency Medical Services personnel responded to the call. As EMS was transporting the decedent to the hospital, he went into cardiac arrest.
The family of the young man commenced a suit against Hooperstown arguing that it was obligated under New York General Business Law (GBL) 627-a(1) to maintain and use an AED in the event of a cardiac emergency. However, GBL §627-a(1) applies to health clubs that have a membership of at least 500 people. It mandates that these health clubs have at least one AED on-site and have in attendance, at all times during staffed business hours, at least one individual employee who holds a valid certification of completion of a course in the study of AED operation and a valid CPR certification. The plaintiff further argued that Hooperstown was liable under the Good Samaritan Law [Public Health Law (PHL) 3000-a(1)] for failing to come to the decedent’s aid and use the AED.
In support of a motion for summary judgment, Hooperstown supplied admissible evidence that it was not a health club, that it did not offer memberships or have members and that, while the club had AEDs on-site, it had an employee on-site who was trained in the use of an AED, and its employees were CPR certified. It also presented evidence that the employees who responded to the incident confirmed that the decedent was breathing prior to the arrival of medical personnel. Thus, the use of an AED was not warranted.
In deciding the motion in favor of Hooperstown, the court relied on the decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals in Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, 20 N.Y.3d 342, 985 N.E.2d 128, 961 N.Y.S.2d 364 (2013), and Parvi v. City of Kingston, 41 N.Y.2d 553 (1977), and held that while GBL 627-a(1) requires a health club to have an AED on-site, it does not require the AED to be used (emphasis added).
The court went further to find that the employees provided emergency medical treatment by immediately calling for medical assistance. They could only be held liable for acts of gross negligence under PHL 3000-a(1), which was not displayed in this instance. The court also went on to dismiss the plaintiff’s argument that Hooperstown owed a special duty to the decedent by reiterating that the statutory obligation to have emergency medical equipment on-site does not correspond to a duty to use the equipment citing to Miglino.
Notably, while the court did not specifically address the issue of whether Hooperstown was obligated under GBL 267-a to have an AED on-site, we believe the court likely determined that the question was moot as Hooperstown, even though it did not have an obligation, was in compliance. Therefore, even if the statute did apply, which we do not believe to be the case, Hooperstown met the statutory requirement.
When faced with a claim arising from a cardiac emergency in a health club and/or recreational facility, it is essential to immediately confirm the identity of the personnel on-site, the available emergency equipment and the training of those present. Armed with this information, defense counsel will be well positioned to file a motion for summary judgment.
Mohammed v. Hooperstown LLC; Supreme Court, Bronx County; Index No. 25899/2015; April 3, 2018
Attorneys of Record: (for defendant) Gail L. Ritzert of Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert and Varriale
