intubation kit. Rather, “first aid” involves simple procedures that can be performed with minimal equipment and training, such as bandaging and repositioning. CPR — which Mr. Abramson indisputably received — lies at the outer limit of the term. American Red Cross & American Heart Association, Guidelines for First Aid (2010), pt. 17 at S935, available at http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/ 122/18_suppl_3/S934.full.pdf+html (defining “first aid” as “the assessments and interventions that can be performed by a bystander (or by the victim) with minimal or no medical equipment” and concluding that “[tjhere is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of supplementary oxygen by a first aid provider”); see also L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550, 559 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2008) (<HOLDING>); Salte v. YMCA of Metro. Chi Found., 351
holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct holding that erisas definition of employer does not include persons other than signatory employers holding that first aid does not include cpr or any other skilled treatment that requires training holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states holding violation of cpr is a question of law not fact