I believe neither woman was actually in the chamber. Both were in a control room adjacent to the chamber, watching on a tv monitor. When the first sparks and fire began, the one woman left to go call the fire dept; the other stayed in the control room, and was seeing the horse, probably engulfed in flame, on the monitor, trying to figure out if there were any controls she could use to alleviate the situation inside the chamber. I suspect that’s why she was watching the monitor, and in tears. There was nothing she could do for the horse at that point. My own suspicion is that she did not realize that she was in danger at that point, probably never did realize that, and that is why she did not leave herself. But she also realized there was nothing she could do to save the horse.
Even the best health insurance leaves many expenses to be paid…somehow. While I am certianly in favor or requiring everyone to carry some form of health insurance it is not an all encompasing security blanket many people think it is.
Remember the skier killed a few weeks ago?
Shortly after Burke’s passing, her family opened up a website to accept donations to help defray the substantial medical bills accrued during her hospital stay. According to the Los Angeles Times, the goal is to raise $550,000 to cover the medical costs.
As a Canadian citizen lived in Squamish, B.C., a small portion of Burke’s medical bills will be covered by the British Columbia Ministry of Health. But it is unclear how the rest would be covered – if not for the generous donations
And this was just hospital costs, no rehab.
[QUOTE=Rhiannonjk;6152858]
No, there were two women and I believe you are getting confused as to where they were. Woman #1 was INSIDE the chamber, with a monitor that controlled the pressure and oxygen. Woman #2 was outisde the chamber. After the first explosion, Woman #2 went to call 911, and Woman #1 was trying to de-pressurize the chamber so that she could get out. She was crying because she was INSIDE a chamber that she knew was about to explode.[/QUOTE]
NO. Sorry, but this is totally incorrect.
NO ONE is inside the chamber a the horse while the treatment is taking place. The horse is in the chamber, alone, and is monitored from OUTSIDE the chamber via closed-circuit TV.
In this case, both women were in a room containing the chamber, but outside the chamber itself, monitoring the horse via closed-circuit TV, when the trouble began. After the first spark and initial flame (which likely set the horse on fire), Moneley left to call 911.
Marshall remained at her post outside the chamber, initiating the depressurization process and, according to Moneley, watching the horse on the monitor, crying.
Moneley started to leave and was about 20 feet away from the chamber area when the two quick explosions happened. This distance is probably what saved her life. From the article:
"Moneley said she left the immediate chamber area to call the fire department. Marshall remained behind to begin the process of returning the chamber to normal pressure.
Moneley told Stroup that while she was leaving, she turned back to look at Marshall, who was "staring at the monitor and crying.
Moneley told investigators that there was an initial explosion followed a moment later by a much larger blast. She said she made it about 20 feet from the room housing the chamber when the second explosion knocked her to the ground. She said she felt something like a hot, gaseous heat wave."
It is, of course, pure speculation as to why Marshall was crying. But it seems likely, as others have suggested, that she was watching the horse inside the chamber being engulfed in flames in an oxygen-rich environment.
Regardless, NO ONE is in the chamber with the horse. The controls for a hyberbaric chamber are outside the chamber, and the chamber is operated from the outside. Please don’t continue this misinformation that the girl was somehow trapped inside the chamber with the horse or operating the chamber from within, at pressure. Totally incorrect.
Thanks for the explanation. I think this part:
both women were in a room containing the chamber, but outside the chamber itself,
Is where I was getting the impression that Marshal was “inside” the chamber.
… which seemed very odd to me.
This was a workers’ compensation injury. As long as KESMARC, FL was doing business by the letter, Ms. Moneley should not have to pay for anything out of pocket and her personal health insurance won’t assume responsibility for a dime. KESMARC,FL must be paying for Workers’ Compensation insurance. If not, they’re headed for Trouble with a capital T.
Was she an employee? I thought she was just there observing.
Correct. Moneley was not a KESMARC employee. She was visiting from the UK, by press accounts for the purpose of researching whether to bring HBOT to wherever she does work.
ETA: Regarding the chamber and the location of the control panels, there has been some talk on the Eventing Board, amongst posters who have experience with HBOT for humans and/or horses, that the control area should be located further from the chamber than this one was. Though what does “should” mean? We seem to be learning from everything that is coming out that there are precious few, if any, standard protocols involved in using this treatment on horses. Hopefully that will change after this accident and more rigorous protocols will be put in place to protect human and equine lives.
I guess she didn’t work for KESMARC, FL, now that I read back, but she was in FL on business, that seems certain. If she was sent there by an employer, then it’s still workers’ comp of some sort, although I don’t know how that works in the UK. I was a victim in a comparable accident in CO, when my home state is VA and the corp. I was working for is headquartered in MD, so while I have more experience than I’d like with workers’ comp here, don’t know about overseas employers’ responsibilities.
[QUOTE=monstrpony;6152913]
I believe neither woman was actually in the chamber. Both were in a control room adjacent to the chamber, watching on a tv monitor. When the first sparks and fire began, the one woman left to go call the fire dept; the other stayed in the control room, and was seeing the horse, probably engulfed in flame, on the monitor, trying to figure out if there were any controls she could use to alleviate the situation inside the chamber. I suspect that’s why she was watching the monitor, and in tears. There was nothing she could do for the horse at that point. My own suspicion is that she did not realize that she was in danger at that point, probably never did realize that, and that is why she did not leave herself. But she also realized there was nothing she could do to save the horse.[/QUOTE]
This is what I think also. I believe she had no idea that the explosion was imminent or even possible. She was crying because she knew the horse was doomed.
For those that are confused about the setup of the facility- there is a photo on their facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/KESMARC-Florida/88385925683?v=info
It is the third photo.
[QUOTE=NeverTime;6152963]
ETA: Regarding the chamber and the location of the control panels, there has been some talk on the Eventing Board, amongst posters who have experience with HBOT for humans and/or horses, that the control area should be located further from the chamber than this one was. Though what does “should” mean? We seem to be learning from everything that is coming out that there are precious few, if any, standard protocols involved in using this treatment on horses. Hopefully that will change after this accident and more rigorous protocols will be put in place to protect human and equine lives.[/QUOTE]
The control panels are usually in close proximity to the chambers. That hasn’t changed after investigations into human chamber fires/explosions, what tends to change is what’s allowed into the chamber and under what circumstances. There should be regulations on where the gas tanks that supply the chamber are stored as well, but that wouldn’t have prevented the fire.
I don’t get why there is any issue to the fact that the injured girl is entitled to a lot of compensation for this. Come on, people, this was almost certainly a foreseeable accident. Shoes were put in the chamber, with some exposed metal and a thin protective coating on the rest. So she gets punitive damages? Great, she deserves them, to teach companies that basic safety of workers – and horses – is more important than whether someone doesn’t want their horses’ shoes removed to go in a highly flammable environment. Workers not trained to evacuate properly. Workers/monitor too close to the explosion zone. This is what tort law is for.
Not to mention the mental anguish of going through this, surely that is worth something. The whole setup seems like a ticking time bomb and they deserve to pay whatever her attorney can get for her. I imagine there will be a wrongful death suit from the family of the deceased and they too deserve a hefty payout.
I agree with you. I think calling it REVENGE (per post 143) is to say the least inaccurate
[QUOTE=carolprudm;6153361]
I agree with you. I think calling it REVENGE (per post 143) is to say the least inaccurate[/QUOTE]
You “selective reading” gene is funtioning again.
I wrote: “Persons injured want compensation and revenge (usually stated as “justice”).”
What part of “compensation” don’t you understand?
If a person is injured due to the mis-, mal-, or non-feasance of another then they are entitled to such compensation as the law allows. They will also, generally, be angry with the person(s) who injured them. They will seek a measure of “recompense” (a fancy word for “revenge”). This is very human and exists almost universally.
The desire for a measure of “revenge” might not be one of the nicer human traits, but it’s there just as sure as the Lord made little, green appples.
G.
P.S. Since the injured person here has so far said very little I attribute nothing to her at all.
I am quite sure that many barns, stables, etc, could stand up to an OHSHA safety inspection. There are many unsafe issues and practices going on around where horses are.
I wonder how most are treating their barn, stable help. Under the table expenses or are they listed as employees.
That begs to question how is work for board, training, lessons handled? Is it all off the books?
I ask this because what if someone get hurt? I don’t think the standard equine laibility poster excuses away, lets say, barnhelp getting kicked and seriously hurt, by a boarders horse.
LOL, I have no problem with selective reading…I prefer it to sloppy writing.
There are subtile but significant differences between
Revenge
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es 1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
n. 1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.
and
recompense [ˈrɛkəmˌpɛns] vb 1. I[/I] to pay or reward for service, work, etc.
2. I[/I] to compensate for loss, injury, etc.
n 1. compensation for loss, injury, etc. to make recompense
2. reward, remuneration, or repayment [from Old French recompenser, from Latin re- + compensâre to balance in weighing; see compensate]
namely the spirit of spite or vindictiveness.
[QUOTE=carolprudm;6153574]
LOL, I have no problem with selective reading…I prefer it to sloppy writing.
There are subtile but significant differences between
Revenge
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es 1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
n. 1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.
and
recompense [ˈrɛkəmˌpɛns] vb 1. I[/I] to pay or reward for service, work, etc.
2. I[/I] to compensate for loss, injury, etc.
n 1. compensation for loss, injury, etc. to make recompense
2. reward, remuneration, or repayment [from Old French recompenser, from Latin re- + compensâre to balance in weighing; see compensate]
namely the spirit of spite or vindictiveness.[/QUOTE]
Interestingly, there are bunches of academic papers on how revenge fits within justice, and how it’s am important concept in it. It can even be seen as recompense if you look at revenge at “getting even” for some loss and then seeking a symmetrical loss for the other party.
The victim of a crime is entitled to a measure of revenge within the official bounds of justice, and I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with that. If someone hurts me, I want them hurt in return - justice codifies the ways in which a civilized society enacts revenge, among other things.
[QUOTE=carolprudm;6152916]
Even the best health insurance leaves many expenses to be paid…somehow. While I am certianly in favor or requiring everyone to carry some form of health insurance it is not an all encompasing security blanket many people think it is.
Remember the skier killed a few weeks ago?
Shortly after Burke’s passing, her family opened up a website to accept donations to help defray the substantial medical bills accrued during her hospital stay. According to the Los Angeles Times, the goal is to raise $550,000 to cover the medical costs.
As a Canadian citizen lived in Squamish, B.C., a small portion of Burke’s medical bills will be
covered by the British Columbia Ministry of Health. But it is unclear how the rest would be covered – if not for the generous donations
And this was just hospital costs, no rehab.[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty common that government health plans do not cover much if any amount for treatment outside the country. Likely the young lady from the UK will have similar problems unless she purchased travel coverage.
I don’t see how the family of the skier could be held responsible for her bills. Her estate would be responsible, not the family. At least by U.S. law.
I was wondering that myself. If the estate can’t cover it, oh well. A person can not be required to accept someone else’s debt. Unless they agreed to be responsible when she was admitted to the hospital.
