RE: saftey of being in the proximity of someone on RAI therapy

["Stankewitsch, Brian T." <BRIAN.T.STANKEWITSCH@saic.com>]

I may be talking out of turn here, (I got my lawyer credentials from a

Cracker Jack box...) but isn't the assumption that the consumer is liable

from a compliance standpoint inasmuch as the provider recommends certain

actions, "for the safety of the patient and the public".  Take f'rinstance

the statement on the back of the can of paint that says "Use of this product

in a manner other than that for which it was intended is a violation of

applicable laws".  (Talk about vague enough to cover any and all potential

violations!)

Usually the litigious entity goes after the deep pockets (not the patient)

(at least in California), though.



Brian Stankewitsch

SAIC Radiation Safety

Rm 2214

16701 West Bernardo Drive

San Diego, Ca 92127

858-826-5734

 



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu] On Behalf Of

daleboyce@charter.net

Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:38 PM

To: daleboyce@charter.net; Philip Egidi; kb1ipd@hotmail.com;

owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu; radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu;

crispy_bird@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: saftey of being in the proximity of someone on RAI therapy



Are Weidis and Jose out there?



It would be interesting to get a lawyers opinion on this topic. Under what

laws would the "suits" come after a patient? Yes, the NRC position (at least

in the past) was that licensee's cannot treat material contaminated with

excreta as exempt from disposal and labeling. However, since the patient is

not a licensee they are specifically exempted from the disposal

requirements. I suspect that if you went after a patient, a sharp lawyer

would line their pockets on violation of right to privacy. The regulatory

authorities have no basis to go after the patient, and the disposal site

operator doesn't make a sympathetic plaintiff in a civil case, but the

patient certainly does in a counter suit. Instruction from the administering

institution is in no way binding on the patient.



Once the hospital has met the release requirements to turn the patient

loose. The material is exempt.  No different than your smoke detector. In

fact if the patient walks AMA the hospital can't stop them, and it is still

exempt.



§ 20.1002 Scope.

The regulations in this part apply to persons licensed by the Commission to

receive, possess, use, transfer, or dispose of byproduct, source, or special

nuclear material or to operate a production or utilization facility under

Parts 30 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 60, 61, 63, 70, or 72 of this chapter, and

in accordance with 10 CFR 76.60 to persons required to obtain a certificate

of compliance or an approved compliance plan under part 76 of this chapter.

The limits in this part do not apply to doses due to background radiation,

to exposure of patients to radiation for the purpose of medical diagnosis or

therapy, to exposure from individuals administered radioactive material and

released under § 35.75, or to exposure from voluntary participation in

medical research programs.



Dale



[67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002; 67 FR 62872, Oct. 9, 2002, as amended at 67 FR

77652, Dec. 19, 2002]





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/