Seven states have now enacted some kind of special liability protection for emergency care, and legislation is under active consideration in at least a half dozen more. However, states have approached this issue in a number of ways, according to Craig Price, ACEP’s chapter and state relations director. Some, like Utah, focused on changing the standard of evidence, while others have looked at raising the bar regarding the degree of negligence that must be proven in emergency care cases.

“In those instances, instead of just proving simple negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a provider’s actions amounted to gross negligence, or willful and wanton negligence, or that the provider’s actions showed a reckless disregard for the consequences,” said Mr. Price. Chapter members choose among these variations based on the approach they believe has the highest likelihood of passage and the highest probability of effectively alleviating the liability problem in their state.

“No matter which option they choose, the ultimate goal is the same—to align their state’s liability laws with the realities of the emergency care environment so that the law properly takes into consideration the high-risk nature of making split-second decisions to provide lifesaving care, often with no knowledge of the patient or his medical history,” said Mr. Price. But “chapter members should remain vigilant even after their liability reforms are passed, as opponents are likely to continue to push to overturn the laws.”