Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 1466

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Health

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2025-11-18T09:05:37Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025 aims to encourage the widespread use and deployment of automated external defibrillators (AEDs)—portable devices that deliver an electric shock to restore normal heart rhythm during cardiac arrest—by establishing a clear, nationwide standard of protection from lawsuits related to their emergency use. This addresses inconsistencies in state laws that currently deter AED placement due to liability fears, ultimately seeking to save more lives from sudden cardiac events.

Key Provisions

The bill amends Section 248 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238q) by replacing it with detailed rules on liability immunity. Key elements include:

• Immunity for Good Samaritans: Individuals who use or try to use an AED in a perceived medical emergency (a situation where someone appears to have a life-threatening heart or breathing issue) are protected from civil lawsuits for any resulting harm, as long as they are not the AED's owner.

• Immunity for Premises Owners, Lessees, or Managers: People who own, lease, or manage the location where an AED is used or from which it is taken for use are also immune from liability for harm caused, provided they are not the AED's owner.

• Immunity for AED Owners or Acquirers: Those who own or possess the AED (termed "owner-acquirers") are protected unless the harm directly results from their failure to maintain the device per the manufacturer's guidelines.

• Broad Applicability of Protections: Immunity applies regardless of:
• Whether the AED has warning signs limiting its use.
• If the AED is registered with any government.
• The user's training, compliance with instructions, or supervision by others (e.g., a doctor).

• Exceptions to Immunity (where protections do not apply):
• Cases involving intentional wrongdoing, extreme carelessness (gross negligence), reckless behavior, or deliberate disregard for safety.
• Licensed health professionals using the AED as part of their job.
• Hospitals or clinics where harm occurs due to staff actions in their professional roles.
• AED owners who lease or provide the device to health care entities for pay (without selling it), if harm results from the entity's staff use.

• Rules of Construction:
• Does not create new lawsuits or require AED placement anywhere.
• Overrides (preempts) state laws that would allow lawsuits in situations where this federal law provides immunity.
• Applies to lawsuits under both state and federal law, including in federal areas where state law is adopted.
• Does not affect existing federal employee protections.

• Jurisdiction and Scope:
• State courts handle related cases and must apply these federal rules.
• Does not give federal courts automatic authority over these matters.

• Definitions:
• Perceived medical emergency: When a reasonable person believes someone needs immediate heart or breathing aid.
• AED: A FDA-approved device that automatically detects and treats irregular heart rhythms without user intervention (must be in auto mode if capable of manual).
• Harm: Includes physical injuries, emotional distress, financial losses (e.g., medical bills, lost wages), and non-financial losses (e.g., pain, loss of companionship).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Replaces the prior version of Section 248 with a more comprehensive framework, shifting from limited protections to a "nationally uniform baseline" that explicitly preempts varying state "Good Samaritan" laws (state rules shielding helpful bystanders from lawsuits).
• Expands coverage to include AED owners and premises managers explicitly, while clarifying exceptions for professional settings.
• Removes requirements tied to training, signage, or registration that some states impose, making protections more accessible and consistent across the U.S.

Potential Impacts

• On Citizens: Increases AED availability in public and private spaces, potentially reducing cardiac arrest deaths (which claim about 350,000 lives annually in the U.S.) by empowering bystanders to act without lawsuit fears.
• On Government Agencies: Minimal direct effects, but federal health agencies (e.g., those under HHS) may see indirect benefits through promoted public health initiatives; state courts gain clear federal guidelines to apply.
• On Businesses and Entities: Multi-state companies (e.g., retailers, offices) are more likely to install AEDs, as uniform protections reduce legal risks compared to navigating patchwork state rules.
• On International Relations: None apparent; this is a domestic public health measure.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Bystanders and Good Samaritans: Everyday people using AEDs in emergencies, now better shielded from lawsuits.
• AED Owners and Property Managers: Businesses, schools, gyms, and building owners who acquire or host AEDs, encouraged to deploy them without liability concerns.
• Health Care Providers: Doctors, hospitals, and clinics face exceptions, so their professional liability remains unchanged.
• Victims and Families: Those experiencing cardiac arrest benefit from faster, more widespread AED access.
• AED Manufacturers and Distributors: Indirectly supported through increased demand, as liability clarity boosts adoption.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Establishes federal preemption over state liability laws in this narrow area, potentially leading to more uniform court outcomes but possible challenges from states arguing overreach. Clarifies that these rules apply in federal enclaves (e.g., military bases) by substituting federal standards for state ones.
• Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate activities like medical device use; no apparent free speech, due process, or equal protection issues, as immunities are narrowly tailored to public health goals.
• Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (from both parties) reflects broad consensus on life-saving measures; could set precedent for federal baselines in other emergency response areas, like naloxone for overdoses, without mandating actions.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Franklin, Scott [R-FL-18]

Cosponsors (9)

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-02-21: Introduced in House
• 2025-02-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-21 — PDF (11 pages)