Fear of AIDS

Fear of AIDS
Barbara S. v Nassau County, Supreme Court, Nassau County, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Emergency service personnel who believe that they have been exposed to HIV in the course of their employment may claim to have developed a fear of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [AIDS]. The Barbara S. case summaries how New York courts treat such claims.

An emergency room nurse at the Massapequa General Hospital, Barbara S. was stuck with a needle while caring for a patient. She and her husband sued, contending that the needle, which had been allegedly used to start an IV in a patient being transported to the hospital, had been negligently and improperly left on the stretcher by the Nassau County employees.

Barbara contended that she was fearful that she would contract Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) as a result of the puncture despite the fact that she has tested negative for AIDS in three tests administered over a 12-month period. The County asked Justice Joseph dismiss her claim on the grounds that she had not shown that she had been actually exposed to blood or fluid seropositive for HIV, citing Brown v New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, 225 AD2d 36.

Justice Joseph said that New York courts have repeatedly dealt with the elements required to establish a cause of action for negligence based on the fear of contracting AIDS. In order to maintain a cause of action for damages due to the fear of contracting AIDS, an individual who has not tested positive for AIDS must offer proof of “actual exposure.” Requiring proof of actual exposure insures that there is a genuine basis for the individual’s fear of developing the disease and that the fear is not based on public misconceptions about AIDS.

The Court said that although Barbara did posit a scientifically accepted method of transmission of the virus, i.e. the needle puncture, she failed to establish with either documentary evidence or testimony that the needle had ever been in contact with any blood or fluid of the patient or that the patient had AIDS.

Justice Joseph characterized Barbara’s claims as “an unsubstantiated allegation that the needle was used for the patient’s treatment” which was not supported by the record. The Court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing her AIDS-related claims. However, Barbara’s action concerning her claim of a physical injury resulting from the needle puncturing her hand survived, since the County conceded that she had suffered such an injury.