Legal Terms and Issues in Athletics

LIABILITY Is the state of BEING LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HARM ONE CAUSES ANOTHER PERSON.

Must act according to the standards of a reasonable prudent person with comparable education, skills and training The Athletic Trainer The Coach The Student Athletic Trainer

"REASONABLE CARE“ "COMMON SENSE"

NEGLIGENCE The FAILURE to use ordinary or reasonable care

Due Care Common Sense Care Reasonable care an ordinary person with comparable education would use

TORT Legal Wrong committed against the person or property of another Two Basic Type of Tort Claims Acts of Omission Acts of Commission

ACT OF OMISSION The Athletic Trainer FAILS to PERFORM a Legal Duty Don’t DO something YOU SHOULD DO

Examples An Athletic Trainer fails to refer a seriously injured athlete for the proper medical attention An Athletic Trainer fails to know the medical history of an athlete which results in a medical emergency i.e. Medical allergies, food allergies, drug allergies, medical conditions

ACT OF COMMISSION The Athletic Trainer COMMITS an act that is not LEGALLY his/hers to perform Do something you aren’t trained to do

Examples An Athletic Trainer performs a medical treatment not within his or her legal province and serious medical complications develop An Athletic Trainer administers prescription medication to an athlete without direct instructions from a physician

Four Basic Elements of Tort Allegations Courts will look for four basic elements in any tort allegation

1) STANDARD OF CARE Did you act REASONABLE when carrying out your everyday activities?

2) BREACH OF DUTY Did you FAIL to exercise reasonable care? Did you violate a law?

3) PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A RESULTING INJURY Did YOUR breach of duty substantially contribute to the injury? Did you FAIL to FORSEE the injury with a particular action?

4) THERE MUST BE INJURY The Sports Medicine professional has a DUTY to ADHERE to the Recognized Standard of Care of the Profession

Examples of Torts An athletic trainer through improper or careless handling of a therapeutic agent, seriously burns an athlete An Athletic Trainer moves a possibly seriously injured athlete from the field of play to permit competition or practice to continue and does so either in an improper manner or before consulting those qualified to know the proper course of action and injures the athlete.

Tort Claims The Tort Concept of Negligence is held by the courts, when it is proven that an individual:

DOES something that a reasonably prudent person would NOT DO FAILS to do something that a reasonably prudent person would do under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence

ASSUMPTION OF RISK The Courts Generally Acknowledge that Hazards ARE PRESENT in sports through the Concept of "Assumption of Risk."

The individual, either by expressed or implied agreement, assumes the danger and hence relieves the other individual of legal responsibility to protect him or her. The Athlete agrees there are risks

This in no way exempts those in charge from exercising reasonable care and prudence in the conduct of activities or from foreseeing and taking precautionary measures

Athletes MUST: Know the Risks Understand the Risks Appreciate the Risks

NEWSFLASH!!! Minors CAN NOT Waive Their Rights Not able to make a mature judgement

WARNING OF RISKS At the Beginning of each season Athletes must be sufficiently warned of the Possible Risks Inherent with that sport. Explain the Rules and the Dangers they may face when using improper and dangerous techniques

FORESEEABILITY OF RISK ATHLETES HEALTH AND WELFARE #1 PRIORITY

Regular Checks of Facilities HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS Accurate Records of Injuries and Treatments

LIABILITY OF THE ATHLETIC TRAINER

As a Result of National Certification and State Licensure, the Risk of Liability for Negligence of Athletic Trainers has also Increased.

There are NOW Higher Standards of Care to which Athletic Trainers must Adhere to.

The Standards form a Legal Duty, the breach of which constitutes Negligence

REAL SPORTS MEDICINE COURT CASES

A STUDENT TRAINER FOR A COLLEGE BASKETBALL TEAM INFORMED THE TEAM'S TREATING PHYSICIAN THAT HE HAD BEEN "ICING" THE SPRAINED ANKLE OF A BASKETBALL PLAYER.

THE PHYSICIAN ASSUMED THAT "ICING" MEANT APPLYING ICE PACKS THE PHYSICIAN ASSUMED THAT "ICING" MEANT APPLYING ICE PACKS. INSTEAD, THE TRAINER HAD USED ICE WATER IMMERSION TREATMENT FOR THE ANKLE.

THE ATHLETE SLEPT OVERNIGHT WITH THE ANKLE SUBMERGED IN A BUCKET OF ICE WATER AND CONTINUED TO IMMERSE THE FOOT FOR SEVERAL DAYS.

AFTER DISCOVERING THAT THE BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS STILL USING ICE WATER IMMERSION THREE DAYS LATER, THE TRAINER IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE PHYSICIAN, WHO INSTRUCTED THE TRAINER TO STOP THE ICE WATER TREATMENT.

SIX DAYS AFTER THE INJURY, THE ATHLETE VISITED THE PHYSICIAN AGAIN AND WAS DIAGNOSED AS HAVING THROMBOPHLEBITIS AND FROSTBITE OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH TOES.

ULTIMATELY, MUSCLE TISSUE IN THE FOOT HAD TO BE REMOVED AND ONE GANGRENOUS TOE HAD TO BE AMPUTATED. THE ATHLETE SUED THE COLLEGE AND THE STUDENT TRAINER.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE JURY FOUND? NOT GUILTY! WHAT DO YOU THINK THE JURY FOUND?

THE ATHLETE HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT IN THE SITUATION AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN INJURIES.

WHAT WAS LEARNED? THIS CASE EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PHYSICIAN, ATHLETIC TRAINER AND ATHLETE

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

A STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL PLAYER SUSTAINED AN INJURY TO HIS CERVICAL SPINE AS A RESULT OF AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE FOOTBALL HELMET SUED NOT ONLY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE HELMET BUT ALSO THE ATHLETIC TRAINER.

IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE TRAINER FAILED TO WARN THE ATHLETE OF THE DANGERS OF THE HELMET.

THE JURY FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE ATHLETE

POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND! THUS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A TRAINER COULD HAVE A DUTY TO WARN AN ATHLETE OF THE INHERENT DANGERS OF EQUIPMENT WHICH THE ATHLETE MAY USE.

IF THE ATHLETIC TRAINER DOES NOT SO WARN THE ATHLETE, AND THE ATHLETE IS INJURED WHILE USING THE EQUIPMENT, THEN THE TRAINER MAY BE NEGLIGENT.

BE A SMART & PRUDENTATHLETIC TRAINER!