Two lawsuits filed in wake of needle reuse admission
Class action for those scared out of their wits’
A class-action lawsuit and a separate suit by a patient claiming infection with hepatitis C virus have been filed in the wake of a phlebotomist’s court-documented admission to reusing needles in a clinical lab in Palo Alto, CA. The lawsuits were filed against the phlebotomist and the lab’s operator, SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab oratories in Philadelphia.
SmithKline spokesman Thomas Johnson says the company does not comment on cases under litigation. The class action suit was filed by Stephen L. Blick of the firm of Hawkins & Blick on April 30, 1999, in the state Superior Court of Santa Clara County in San Jose, CA. The suit’s numerous damage claims include lack of informed consent to reuse the needles, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and breach of contract and implied warranty. The suit also cites the prolonged fear — familiar to health care workers who have suffered needlesticks — that seroconversion from a bloodborne virus could occur months after the exposure.
"The class action we have filed is basically for the people who have been scared out of their wits by this lady," says Charles Hawkins, JD, a partner in the firm. "There is an expressed, direct, contractual and actual relationship between SmithKline and each of these patients. There is an implied warranty that you are going to perform these medical tasks in a manner consistent with the standard of care and good medical practice. They breached that."
Hawkins’ wife, Linda, who claims in the suit to have had blood drawn at the clinic several times by the phlebotomist, is listed in the suit as the initial plaintiff. "You just need one plaintiff to certify the class if the plaintiff is representative, but you have to show the judge that it is a kind of action that is amenable to class-action work," Hawkins says.
The suit could grow to include many of the 3,600 patients contacted by SmithKline if it is awarded class-action status by the court. The firm already has received 600 phone calls from patients who were notified by SmithKline to consider testing in light of the incident. In order to certify the class as "representative," those who actually claim to have been infected with a bloodborne disease at the lab will be referred to their own attorneys to pursue separate action, Hawkins says.
In that regard, another lawsuit claiming an actual infection at the SmithKline lab in Palo Alto was filed on May 4, 1999, in the state Superior Court of Santa Clara County in San Jose, CA, by attorney Richard Alexander, JD. A woman identified only as "Jane Doe" in the suit claims she tested positive for HCV on or about Oct. 29, 1997. She claims she had her blood drawn by the phlebotomist the prior June, July, and September at the Palo Alto lab while participating in a research program at Stanford University.
"That’s the only likely association," Alexander tells HIC. "She doesn’t have any history of transfusion or drugs [or any other risk factors]."
The woman gave birth in March of 1997, and there was no evidence of any HCV in the testings and evaluations prior to delivery, he adds. Her husband is HCV-negative, he notes.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content