Athletic trainers, team physicians, physical therapists, coaches, and schools all face potential liability by providing medical coverage at athletic events. This article will focus on potential liability that may arise from high school athletic injuries.30 Common principles can be found among the laws of each state, but material differences exist in the decisions of the higher courts of each state and from state statutes. This article is not intended to serve as a state-by-state comparison of applicable laws, but rather to explain the legal principles involved, and offer some “real life” examples of how courts in various jurisdictions around the country have applied these principles with a goal of bringing about awareness and further discussion. Everyone owes a duty of reasonable care to others in the course of their daily lives. A tort is committed when we fail to act as an ordinary and reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances and cause injury to another person. An individual who possesses a greater degree of skill and training in a particular field must act as a reasonably prudent person who possesses similar skill and training. For example, licensed physicians are held to the standard of care of possessing and applying the knowledge ordinarily used by reasonably well-qualified physicians in providing professional services under same or similar circumstances. Additionally, within a particular field or profession, individuals who specialize may be held to an even higher standard of care than others in their profession. Thus, an orthopaedic surgeon may be held to a higher standard of care than a general internist. For example, the respective standards of care imposed on athletic trainers and coaches were set forth in Searles v Trustees of St. Joseph College,36 by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Plaintiff Searles attended college on an athletic scholarship playing basketball. He developed pain in his knees, was diagnosed with patellar tendinitis, and contended that both the basketball coach and athletic trainer were made aware of his complaints but that the coach insisted he continue to play. He subsequently stopped playing and underwent 2 surgeries. The court held that colleges, private schools, and public schools have a legal duty to exercise reasonable care toward their students. “That duty encompasses the duty of college coaches and athletic trainers to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of student athletes.”36 An athletic trainer “has the duty to conform to the standard of care required of an ordinary careful trainer.”36 The appellate court held that whether the basketball coach breached his duty under the alleged facts was “a question of fact for the jury to consider.”36 No national standard of care applies to healthcare providers covering athletic events; hence, healthcare providers should be aware of the standard of care applicable to them in their particular state as defined by the courts in that state and under applicable regulations and statutes. The standard of care is defined by common law principles and may be further defined by state and federal statutes, publications from organized governing bodies, as well as directives or recommendations published by state athletic associations, student handbooks, and memorandum and e-mails generated by school officials, administrators, and athletic directors, among others.31 Potential liability may be alleviated under the circumstances by statutes providing immunity, Good Samaritan laws, liability waivers, and affirmative defenses such as the assumption of risk. One method for gaining an appreciation of these issues is by examining published decisions of appellate courts in various jurisdictions about claims made against team physicians, athletic trainers, coaches, schools, and others. This article will focus on high school athletics; however, similar issues have arisen in the context of club, college, and professional sports.
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2012
Nick Silver + 1
Open Access