“Because care for the body and the emotions are so interlinked, and patients often are dependent on their physicians’ exercise of due care, they therefore are susceptible to suffer emotionally as well as physically as a result of their physicians’ negligence,” the judges wrote, noting the ruling is not limited to cases involving health care providers.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
You Can Take Legal Action Against Fraudulent HIV Testing
RTB: The HIV Test scandal is reaching the courts. As the legal system begins to understand the fraudulent nature of HIV testing, we are seeing a first blush of what we predict will become a flood of lawsuits challenging the faulty, non-standardized “HIV positive” test diagnosis. If you have been given an ‘HIV’ diagnoses and wish to challenge it, please contact the OMSJ today.
BLT – A Washington man incorrectly diagnosed with HIV can sue his health clinic for infliction of emotional distress, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) today, expanding the ground for similar damages claims for the first time since 1990.Zoe TillmanBLT – Blog of the Legal Times
Although previous case law limited claims for emotional damages to cases in which a person was in physical danger and feared for his safety, the en banc court found that “physical endangerment” is too limiting a standard.
The judges, who ruled unanimously, expanded on the “zone of physical danger” requirement set up in the court’s 1990 Williams v. Baker decision.
The court’s new “supplemental rule” establishes a three-part test: First, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant’s obligation to the plaintiff is tied to the plaintiff’s emotional well-being; second, that there is an “especially likely” risk that negligence could cause “serious emotional distress;” and third, that negligent actions did cause that distress.
In the underlying case, Terry Hedgepeth went for an HIV test in late 2000 at the Whitman-Walker Clinic, now called Whitman-Walker Health, because he had just learned his girlfriend was HIV-positive. A blood test showed Hedgepeth was not HIV-positive but, due to a “human error,” the lab results form was filled out to mistakenly list him as positive.
Hedgepeth believed he was HIV-positive for the next five years. He suffered from severe depression and suicidal thoughts, and engaged in risky behavior, including sexual intercourse with a woman who was HIV-positive, because he thought “there was no reason for [him] to live.”
In June 2005, a series of new tests revealed he was not HIV-positive. He filed suit against the nonprofit and one of its doctors in District of Columbia Superior Court in August 2005.
The trial judge granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that Hedgepeth had failed to pass the “zone of physical danger” test. The appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision in October 2009. Hedgepeth successfully requested an en banc rehearing, which was held last June.
The ruling today overturns the previous decisions and remands the case back to Superior Court.
Hedgepeth’s lawyer, Washington solo practitioner Jonathan Dailey, did not immediately return a request for comment. The Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief on Hedgepeth’s behalf; a representative there could not immediately be reached.
Alfred Belcuore, also a Washington solo practitioner, argued for Whitman-Walker Health. Belcuore and a spokesman for the nonprofit did not immediately return a request for comment. Children’s National Medical Center filed an amicus brief, but a representative there could not immediately be reached.