Federal appellate court finds unresolved questions about in-flight defibrillator performance
A federal appellate court has ruled that sufficient unresolved factual questions remain regarding whether an onboard automated external defibrillator (AED) functioned properly during the emergency medical response involving a 14-year-old American Airlines passenger who died during an international flight. The decision sends the case back to a federal district court in Fort Worth, Texas, where it will now proceed toward trial.
The case stems from the death of Kevin Greenidge, who was traveling with his family in 2022 from Honduras back to New York following a summer vacation. Shortly after takeoff, Kevin reportedly lost consciousness and became unresponsive, triggering a medical emergency onboard the aircraft.
According to court filings and statements from the family, the flight crew attempted to provide emergency medical assistance using the aircraft’s automated external defibrillator. However, the device allegedly failed to deliver a life-saving electrical shock when it was deployed. The lawsuit argues that this malfunction, combined with difficulties in operating the equipment under emergency conditions, may have contributed to the inability to revive the teenager.
Because of the severity of Kevin’s condition, the aircraft diverted and made an emergency landing in Cancun, Mexico. Upon landing, Kevin was transferred to a nearby hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.
The central issue in the litigation is whether the AED on board the aircraft functioned correctly during the medical emergency and whether the crew was able to properly use it in accordance with required procedures. The lawsuit, filed by Kevin’s mother, Melissa Arzu, alleges that the defibrillator did not deliver an electrical shock despite indications that it was needed at the time.
Attorneys representing the plaintiff argue that multiple witnesses support the claim that no shock was administered. “As the appellate court noted, the doctor and nurse attending to Kevin during the emergency, together with other witnesses, agreed that no shock occurred,” said Darren Nicholson, one of the attorneys representing Arzu.
The appellate ruling did not determine liability or fault but instead focused on whether the case should be dismissed or allowed to proceed. By finding that factual disputes remain, the court concluded that a jury should ultimately decide key questions about what happened during the in-flight emergency.
“We are pleased that Kevin’s case will now move forward, nearly four years after his death,” said Hannah Crowe, another attorney representing Arzu. Crowe is working alongside Nicholson through the law firm Burns Charest LLP, which was brought into the case after a venue dispute shifted proceedings to Texas.
Originally, Arzu filed the lawsuit in New York, where she resides. However, American Airlines successfully moved to transfer the case to federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, where the airline maintains its corporate headquarters. That procedural change delayed the case but ultimately placed it under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of key pre-trial rulings.
At the heart of the legal dispute is not only the performance of the AED itself, but also broader questions about airline medical preparedness and compliance with federal aviation safety regulations. Automated external defibrillators have been required on all U.S. passenger aircraft since 2004 under federal mandates designed to improve survival rates during in-flight cardiac emergencies.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules require that AED devices be properly labeled, regularly inspected, and maintained in a state of readiness so that they can function as intended during emergencies. Airlines are also required to ensure that crew members are trained in their use, as rapid deployment of a defibrillator can be critical in cases of sudden cardiac arrest.
The lawsuit raises concerns about whether these requirements were fully met in this instance and whether equipment failure or improper operation played a role in the tragic outcome. While the appellate court did not reach conclusions on these allegations, it emphasized that conflicting evidence must be evaluated at trial rather than resolved through pre-trial dismissal.
Legal analysts note that cases involving in-flight medical emergencies often hinge on complex technical and procedural questions, including equipment maintenance logs, crew training records, and testimony from medical professionals who may have assisted during the incident. In this case, witness accounts from onboard medical personnel, including a doctor and nurse who were reportedly present during the emergency, are expected to play a central role in the upcoming proceedings.
The case also highlights the broader issue of passenger expectations regarding emergency medical equipment on commercial flights. While aircraft are equipped with advanced safety and medical devices, outcomes in severe medical emergencies can still depend heavily on timing, equipment reliability, and the ability of crew members and volunteers to respond effectively under pressure.
As the case returns to the federal district court in Fort Worth, both sides will have the opportunity to present evidence, including technical assessments of the AED unit, maintenance documentation, and testimony regarding its use during the flight. A trial date has not yet been announced.
For Kevin’s family, the appellate court’s decision represents an important step forward in seeking answers about what happened during the final moments of his life. For American Airlines, the case now moves into a phase where factual determinations—rather than procedural arguments—will determine the outcome.
Source link: https://www.businesswire.com/