Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
02/04/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 4-AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR
1:03:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4 "An Act relating to automated external
defibrillators."
1:04:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON testified as prime sponsor on behalf of
the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association. She stated that HB 4 would
reduce impediment in state law to allow more public access to
Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). She stated that
sudden cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in the United
States resulting in approximately 350,000 deaths per year as for
each minute sudden cardiac arrest is untreated by
defibrillation, the survival chance decreases seven percent in
the first three minutes, and ten percent thereafter. She
offered that AEDs can be used safely by an untrained bystander
to restore a normal cardiac rhythm in someone who is in sudden
cardiac arrest. When the device is turned on, it provides step-
by-step verbal and written instruction and, she noted, these
devices have an impressive success rate. Representative Wilson
then showed a video depicting the verbal instructions attached
to an AED. She explained that the video shows exactly how it
will speak to an individual. She added that there are now
devices that will also perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) and walk an individual through CPR. She presented that
the use of AEDs are currently covered by the Alaska Good
Samaritan Law and are designed to encourage would-be rescuers to
take action without fear of litigation. However, the Alaska
Good Samaritan Law attaches conditions to building owners and
institutions that provide AEDs. These conditions include the
requirement of providing training, maintenance, a means of
notifying 911, and registering the device with emergency medical
services (EMS.) She opined that removing certain conditions and
requirements will increase the number of AEDs in communities.
1:08:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON showed a video entitled The Future of
AEDs.
1:10:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON described AEDs as becoming easier to
utilize as was depicted on the video, and that a medical
professional was able to see the patient. Within big cities
where the wait time may be longer for EMS, these devices could
be utilized, she opined.
1:11:11 PM
DOUG SCHRAGE, Fire Chief, University of Alaska Fairbanks, stated
he represents the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association and that the
association urges support for HB 4. In his line of work, he
noted, the speed of response is relied upon for fires and
medical emergencies. In order to save lives emergency services
rely on the intervention of ordinary bystanders to fill in the
gaps before it arrives on scene. He described bystanders as
citizens willing to step up and act to save another person's
life. This is why fire extinguishers and AEDs are provided in
public places, he said. However, he explained, the maximum
benefits are derived only if they are immediately available to a
patient in need. Evidence shows that untrained lay persons can
safely and effectively use an AED without risk of accidental
shock to the rescuer or patient, he noted. He expressed that
this is not a bill about discontinuing CPR and AED training and
maintenance programs, nor de-emphasizing device registration, or
emergency notification as it is about making more AEDs available
to the public. The association believes strongly in the
importance of first aid, CPR and AED training, regular
maintenance and registration of these devices. However, he
related, civil immunity laws have shown to be an impediment to
the acquisition of AEDs as it increases liability rather than
provides immunity from it. Furthermore, he offered, recent
trends in litigation suggest that a facility without an AED may
be subject to more liability than one with an AED. He
highlighted that there is anecdotal evidence that these
requirements are preventing Alaskan building owners from
providing AEDs in their facilities. In other cases building
owners are limiting the use of their AEDs from the public where
they can most effectively be used. As a result, people may be
needlessly dying who might otherwise be revived from access to
the AED.
1:14:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether people have had heart attacks
and building owners have refused to allow an individual to use
the AED.
MR. SCHRAGE responded in the affirmative. He used the example
of this building wherein outside this room, in the hallway,
there is a cabinet with an AED in it. On the cabinet is a label
that effectively reads that use by untrained personnel is
prohibited. In that regard, a rescuer would see that label and
be deterred from using the AED and, therefore, a patient may go
unattended for a certain amount of time. He pointed out that as
was shown in the video, these devices can be used easily by
someone without any prior training.
1:15:12 PM
MR. SCHRAGE continued that there are 80 plus buildings at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and barely a dozen AEDs.
He advised that its general counsel concluded there is a
moderate risk of a lawsuit due to the placement of AEDs, and
that UAF cannot adequately assure there will always be
appropriate people trained to use the device or able to comply
with maintenance requirements. Four of the leading
manufacturers of AEDs recommend daily maintenance checks and in
a large institution the ability to ensure that the manufacturer
maintenance recommendations are complied with make it nearly
impossible, he stated. He opined that the primarily goal of AED
Good Samaritan legislation should be to offer liability
protection to all of the AED program constituents with the
objective of putting more AEDs in service. Model AED
legislation should not condition immunity upon compliance with
any of those requirements. He offered that the association is
not aware of any opposition to HB 4.
1:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER referred to Ms. Schrage's statement that
there was no risk of shock, yet the video depicted that the
patient should not be touched while the shock is administered.
He asked the result if an individual is touched while the shock
is administered.
MS. SCHRAGE answered that the conventional thinking, and
programing of all the current devices is that there was a risk
to the rescuer being shocked. However, he noted, research is
currently underway in Washington wherein researchers performed
CPR chest compressions on a patient while a doctor delivered a
shock and in numerous instances no shock was felt by the
rescuer. He expects that the guidance provided during training
will be modified to reflect the change
1:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the typical cost of an AED.
MR. SCHRAGE responded that typically the cost is $1,500, which
includes the cabinet and everything that goes in it.
1:19:07 PM
MR. SCHRAGE, in responding to Representative Lynn, answered that
the battery and patches are all that is involved in maintenance.
A quick maintenance check is basically to ensure that the device
is in place and charged up. The batteries have a shelf life of
around five years and must be replaced. Part of the maintenance
check to ascertain that the patches have not been exposed to air
which affects the stickiness, and if they have they should be
replaced as they will dry out. Beyond that, there is really no
maintenance to the devices, he remarked.
1:20:11 PM
MR. SCHRAGE responded to Representative Millett that to his
knowledge AED devices do not have to be replaced and do not have
a shelf life. He stated that Biphasic Technology is currently
being used which is a more effective way of delivering the
electrical shock.
1:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN inquired as to the survival rate with CPR
versus CPR combined with AEDs.
MR. SCHRAGE said that it is partly determined by the cardiac
dysrhythmia being experienced. The AED only works on
ventricular fibrillation wherein the electrical signal doesn't
follow the normal pathways that cause the muscle to contract in
an organized way. He explained that when the machine instructs
the user to stand back it is analyzing rhythm and attempting to
sense the presence of the fib, in the absence of that, it will
recommend CPR only.
1:22:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned the statistical improvement of
survivability of heart events when an AED is use versus not in
use. He stated his memory is that there is a significantly
increased success rate when an AED is in the mix.
MR. SCHRAGE advised he could not cite the exact statistic but
would say the improvement goes well beyond that statistical
significance.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that part of what is being written
out in this statute is broadly described as a registration
requirement. For example, he described, a restaurant owner has
an AED in the building and the owner is supposed to notify the
fire department in his community that he has an AED - which is
being taken out of the statute under this bill. He asked how
reliable business owners were in notifying the fire department
of an AED and whether there is there a program in place that
businesses would routinely let the fire department know, if it
is not part of the statutory requirement.
MR. SCHRAGE answered that virtually no one complies with the
requirement of notifying the fire department of the AED. There
is a registry and people promoting improvement in cardiac arrest
survival rates feel strongly that the registry is an important
component of that improvement effort. There is an app for a
telephone that will allow an individual to enroll in the system
and be alerted if they know CPR to the location of a patient
nearby and the location of the nearest AED. The association
believes the registry is very important, but stipulating this
requirement as a condition for immunity is misplaced, so it is
launching other efforts to promote compliance for the registry,
he offered.
1:25:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted a reference in the bill for
basically Good Samaritan application to the owner of an AED, to
be put on the wall. He requested an example that would
constitute gross negligence in which a business owner could be
exposed to liability.
MR. SCHRAGE offered that he has had no training in law and is
not qualified but could envision few circumstances where the
failure of an AED to operate, or even if an AED does operate
that it would rise to the level of gross negligence.
1:26:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN assessed that the biggest maintenance
issue was batteries and patches and noted that checking daily
probably doesn't happen anywhere. He asked if there was a
potential for an AED being unused and on the wall for ten years,
the batteries would be dead and someone tried to use it later -
is that an issue.
MR. SCHRAGE said that modern AEDs have, like smoke detectors,
when the battery gets low it chirps to alert people it is time
to replace the battery.
1:27:51 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that HB 4 does not eliminate the
requirement for reporting to the registry, the bill just reads
that not reporting is not something that will deprive an
individual of immunity. She questioned if the reporting
provisions are in another place of the statute.
MR. SCHRAGE stated that to his knowledge it does not exist
anywhere else.
1:28:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the shock delivered from the AED,
assuming research does not indicate an individual would not
receive a shock, and questioned whether an accidental shock is
lethal.
MR. SCHRAGE speculated that it would not be a lethal shock. The
AED typically starts at 200 joules, which is a small amount of
electricity, and the placement of the electrode pads is such
that it directs the energy straight through the heart muscle and
most of the energy is contained between the two electrodes. He
pointed out that the machine is sophisticated in that it
recognizes a normal sinus rhythm and would not deliver a shock.
1:29:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she recognizes that unintended shock
was a concern at schools with AEDs and with technology it just
does not happen.
1:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if Alaska would be the first state
as far as removing the potential liability or have other states
gone ahead.
MR. SCHRAGE answered that California introduced nearly identical
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired what the procedure is after an
AED is used, whether batteries are replaced, and the cost.
MR. SCHRAGE offered that the batteries can be recharged or
replaced, and the electrodes must be restored. The EMS
providers must be able to upload from the device the data it
recorded regarding the cardiac rhythm.
1:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the use of the word
"gross negligence" is a word that is not defined and questioned
the meaning of gross negligence.
MR. SCHRAGE advised he does not feel qualified to answer that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON read the Department of Law's definition
for gross negligence. "I will now define gross negligence for
you. First, you must understand what ordinary negligence means.
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care which is the
amount of care a reasonable careful person would use in the same
situation. Gross negligence is an extreme departure from this
standard. Gross negligence means more than ordinary
inadvertence or inattention but less than conscious indifference
or consequences."
1:32:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN assumed that in the event an individual was
experiencing blockage of the heart, that the AED would not
administer the shock.
MR. SCHRAGE answered in the affirmative.
1:33:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether there are age limitations.
MR. SCHRAGE advised that AEDs are designed for any age of an
adult patient, 15, 16, 17 and on up. They are not designed to
be used on children and there is virtually no occurrence of
ventricular fibrillation in child patients, he opined.
1:34:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked when an AED is used and the pads are
not replaced and dry out, whether there is some kind of
protection built in for gross negligence.
MR. SCHRAGE stated "not that I am aware of."
1:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked if statistically there is a heart
event where the AED will apply and be helpful in those
situations.
MR. SCHRAGE replied that in the case of witnessed cardiac
arrest, approximately 35 percent of the instances are
ventricular fibrillation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned that more AEDs are being
produced that include the CPR portion where it counts for the
rescuer, and indicates when to take the breath.
1:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired whether the AED will instruct the
rescuer in a defibrillation and CPR situation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded to Representative Foster "that
is correct." She responded to Representative Lynn that when
AEDs were placed in the schools "we" bought pads for children
and there was a case where a fifth grader in Texas went down in
the hallway, and the school had a defibrillator and fibrillated
that child's life. There was an additional cost "we" had to
raise so "we" had pads for children because most come with pads
for adults.
1:37:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the text of the bill will
change from citing specific examples "where they would remain
negligent liability" to simply a standard of gross negligence.
He opined the court could interpret the change two ways,
allowing more examples of gross negligence and not limiting it
to A, B and C, but anything that could be gross negligence.
Another way would be to interpret it as a higher standard so
that these things currently listed would no longer fall under
the definition of gross negligence but simple negligence. He
stated it is ambiguously written because it doesn't clarify
which way is intended.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that current law is such that
building owners must basically say they know that everyone in
the building is trained. The intent is to require "people who
are maybe trained, or just know how to follow direction when
being spoken."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised he is attempting to ascertain
that a court or lawyer who has never seen this before, opens the
[statutes] and clearly understands Representative Wilson's
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that anyone can sue and go before a
judge, but this bill clarifies the intention.
1:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a statement that one or
more manufacturers has recommended that AEDs be tested daily and
if that is standard then probably anyone who installs them is
violating the standard and, he opined, that standard may be used
by a court as setting the standard of due care.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered that in a perfect world the more
an individual checks on any electronic device the better it will
be. Also, she remarked, the manufacturer probably did not
update its recommendations because it would rather be on the
safer side.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that in court the plaintiff
would sue the building owner and the manufacturer and the
question becomes who is liable. The manufacturer would say the
building owner is liable because the AED is not maintained
properly. He explained that there is the concept of strict
liability against some of the people who manufacture these
products and in those cases negligence doesn't have to be shown,
just that there was a causal relationship.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated she has practiced personal injury law and
does not have any problem understanding the bill.
1:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Mr. Schrage in terms of the
maintenance and the batteries, when an individual is in de-fib
and EMS takes the AED to the hospital with them, whether the
maintenance is that it would need new pads and the batteries
checked for charge.
MS. SCHRAGE agreed and stated that the scenario is subject to
variations in EMS systems. Some EMS technicians may choose to
service the device at the scene as they are able to upload the
information.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that the building owner in that
setting should not expect the AED to stay in the building as it
is more likely to go with the EMS.
MR. SCHRAGE opined that was a reasonable expectation.
1:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if 12 is the adult age for purposes
of CPR.
MR. SCHRAGE responded that for purposes of CPR an adult is eight
years old. He stated that the incidents of ventricular
fibrillation in children is not non-existent but is virtually
absent.
1:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that in terms of the entire statute,
subsection (a), which is not being amended basically reads that
a person using an AED has the Good Samaritan protections under
subsection (a).
MR. SCHRAGE responded "that is our intent."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that what is being modified is
subsection (b) which is essentially that a business owner is
subject to a gross negligence standard for how the AED is or is
not maintained at its place of business.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated "that is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN further noted that subsection (c) is not
being changed that would apply an ordinary negligence standard
for the manufacturer.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised "that is correct also."
1:50:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that with respect to
Representative Gruenberg's questions, the intent between the
manufacturer and the business owner is that the business owner
is essentially being told to rely on the manufacturer to build
the machines correctly as long as there is an AED in the
business owners shop. The business owner will not be held out
to knowing more than the AED manufacturer does and the business
owner will be held to a lesser standard. He inquired as to
whether that is the intent of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed and opined that most building
owners believe the Good Samaritan Act already covers them.
1:51:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that gross negligence would be when
the building owner had repeatedly been told the batteries were
dead, and was aware of it for a couple of years and never took
the AED out of the public place or replaced the batteries. In
that scenario there may be a claim for gross negligence but it
would be up to the court as to whether it would succeed, he
said.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that a building is not required to
have an AED, so for the building owner to go to the extent of
putting them in and yet not perform any training or maintenance
made no sense to her. She further opined that most constituents
believe they are covered by statute, and are not.
1:53:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if the standard in
subsection (c), dealing with the manufacturer, raises the
standard that would normally be required to sue a manufacturer
regarding a potentially dangerous instrument. He further
questioned if this insulates the [AED] manufacturer where other
manufacturers would not be so insulated.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded there may be assistance on-line
to answer Representative Gruenberg's question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated whether the existing
standard in subsection (c), which imposes a standard of
negligence by statute, raises the standard of strict liability.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
1:56:14 PM
WENDY MACNAUHPON, American Heart Association, American Stroke
Association, stated that the American Heart Association realizes
that every minute counts when an individual experiences sudden
cardiac arrest. She opined it is important to remove the
impediment provisions of AEDs in public places as it will
provide more opportunities for Good Samaritans to act and more
lives saved.
1:57:09 PM
JAMIE MORGAN, American Heart Association, American Stroke
Association, affirmed that the associations are very much in
support of HB 4 as they believe increased access to AEDs will
result in more lives saved.
1:57:49 PM
KRISTIN LUBY, American Heart Association, American Stroke
Association, stated she supports HB 4 as it will remove barriers
that inhibit current businesses from installing AEDs in their
building. "Time is muscle" as every minute an individual is in
cardiac arrest and not being treated or receiving assistance
counts, and time is the heart muscle dying. She related that
passage of HB 4 will result in increased access to AEDs and help
provide more opportunities for Good Samaritans to act, and more
lives saved.
1:59:13 PM
SHERRY MODROW, advised she is representing herself and agrees
with Mr. Schrage. She supports the American Heart Association
and would like to see AEDs installed in many places, and
bystanders be encouraged to use AEDs. She offered that she is a
full time volunteer at UAF and would like to see AEDs available
on campuses as well as across Alaskan communities.
2:00:52 PM
RON TEMPLETON, University Fire Department, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, stated his support
for HB 4 is more of a personal nature in that his wife passed of
heart disease in 2007. Unfortunately, he noted, when his wife
passed she was not somewhere that AEDs would have been any good
- she was at home. He stated he has come to realize that heart
disease is a profound killer of women in America and HB 4 will
remove impediments that corporations and businesses have of
putting AEDs in communities to be utilized. He expressed that
if only one life can be saved it is worth all of the effort - it
is important AEDs are available for use and that [building
owners] do not have to worry about liability.
2:02:52 PM
JILL LEWIS, Deputy Director, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health & Social Services, stated that Emergency
Medical Service (EMS) is under the Division of Public Health,
and it certifies EMS technicians, and also has the
responsibility for promoting and ensuring competent workforce
and infrastructure for EMS. The division is responsible for
training in terms of approving training and trainers for AEDs.
She clarified that EMTs would still be required to receive
training and the division would continue to perform as above.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
2:04:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to subsection (c) and
paraphrased, "The immunity provided by (b) if this section which
we are amending here, does not apply to a manufacturer of an
automated external defibrillator" which, he opined, means that
the rest of common law and statutory law in Alaska does apply.
He said he assumes that would include strict liability and,
therefore, is already covered.
2:05:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that the question of strict
liability and not strict liability is what constitutes a
dangerous product that may make it subject to strict liability
which is part of common law. He added that where an AED is or
is not a dangerous product and whether that would qualify as
strict liability or not strict liability is something best left
to the courts.
2:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT advised that the incentive behind this
bill is to take liability away and make Alaskan communities
safer places to live. As a woman, she offered, she likes the
legislation as it serves its purpose very well, is signing on as
a co-sponsor, and hopes the bill passes out of committee today
as is.
2:07:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she intended to pass out but is now wondering
whether this should say "civil damages resulting from gross
negligence, or intentional, or reckless conduct." She
questioned whether the bill sponsor had a comment.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that [HB 4] has been vetted
through the fire department council as well as the American Red
Cross and others who were supportive or neutral on the language.
She advised she is comfortable with the current language as it
does accomplish the intent.
2:08:39 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:08 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.
The committee treated public testimony as being open.
2:14:30 PM
MICHAEL LEVY, Medical Director, Anchorage Fire Department,
Anchorage Areawide Emergency Medical Services, advised he is
President of the Loren Marshall Foundation, which is a
foundation that provides opportunities for citizens to learn
CPR; he is on the Board of Directors, National Association of
EMS Physicians; and is the principal investigator of the Heart
Rescue Project in Alaska. Therefore, he said, he has extensive
ongoing experience with cardiac arrest. He offered that if any
barriers could be lowered regarding AEDs in the community it
would benefit Alaskan citizens. He related that AEDs should be
as widely distributed as are fire extinguishers, and readily
available to any individual witnessing a cardiac arrest. There
is no question AEDs are an important and relatively inexpensive
life saving measure that when applied early has the best
opportunity for success. He highlighted that when individuals
feel they are at risk of legal ramifications by having the
device or any other sort of encumbrances, it does not promote
the availability of AEDs. He offered that the devices can be
safely used by the public.
2:16:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether there is evidence
that changing the standard will cause more people to install
AEDs.
DR. LEVY remarked that he is unaware of any study in Alaska that
this would cause a change, however, nationwide people have
declined being involved due to the threat of litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there was evidence that
anything else could be performed, other than changing the tort
standard of liability, to encourage people to install AEDs.
DR. LEVY responded that possibly from a legislative standpoint
it could be required that places where the public gathers must
have AEDs, in full public view, as a public safety measure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether any other
jurisdiction had done anything else to either encourage or
require the installation of AEDs.
DR. LEVY stated he is "unaware of anyone doing that," but is not
an expert.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
2:19:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER advised he was ready to make a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
2:20:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that an earlier witness stated only
California has enacted a statute similar to this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that his question was whether
any other jurisdiction had done anything else.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection.
2:21:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 4 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 4 moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee
2:22:10 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB04 AED Bill Power Point Presentation.pptx |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Ver. A 1-21-2015.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Supporting Document 4 - Research report_ Automated external defibrillator use by untrained bystanders can the public use model work.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Supporting Document 3 - Research report_ Effects of AED device features on performance by untrained laypersons.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Supporting Document 2 - What Is an Automated External Defibrillator.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Supporting Document 1 - Heart Rhythm Society Sudden Cardiac Arrest Fact Sheet.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Letter of Support for AEDs Michael Levy MD.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB04 Letter of Support for AED's AFCA.pdf |
HJUD 2/4/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |