Requiring counties to register automated external defibrillators with Office of Emergency Medical Services
SB96 revises West Virginia’s automated external defibrillator (AED) law. The bill updates findings and definitions, and it changes the registration framework for AED programs by requiring AEDs placed on an entity’s premises to be registered with the Office of Emergency Medical Services, along with information about location, training, EMS coordination, maintenance, and use. It also updates language around who may use an AED, what counts as an early defibrillation program, and how AED-related data and reporting are handled.
The bill also removes the requirement that an entity designate a medical director for its AED program, while still requiring coordination with EMS and reporting of AED use. It clarifies training expectations for anticipated operators, requires notification to local EMS and dispatch centers, and preserves the existing liability protections for good-faith use of an AED, so long as the conduct does not amount to gross negligence and the statutory conditions are met.
SB96 would amend West Virginia Code §§16-4D-1 through 16-4D-4, affecting AED owners, businesses, organizations, and other entities that place AEDs on their premises. It would shift the law toward a more formal registration-and-notification system with the Office of Emergency Medical Services and local emergency response agencies, while eliminating the statutory requirement to designate a medical director for each program. The bill also reinforces maintenance, training, and reporting obligations and leaves intact the civil liability shield for compliant AED use.
The bill appears generally supportive of expanding and organizing AED access, with its stated purpose focused on improving early defibrillation and emergency response. The bill text reflects a public-safety rationale and does not show opposition in the provided committee or vote history, which is empty. Overall, the tone is pro-AED access and pro-emergency preparedness, with an emphasis on coordination rather than restriction.
The main policy change that could draw attention is the removal of the medical director requirement, which may be viewed as reducing administrative burden for entities but could also raise questions about oversight and program coordination. Another possible point of contention is the expanded registration and reporting obligation, especially for counties, businesses, schools, and other entities that maintain AEDs. The bill’s liability provisions are largely preserved, so there is little evidence of controversy over immunity, but the balance between public safety, administrative compliance, and local EMS coordination is the central issue.