Piedmont Hosp. Inc. v. D. M.

The plaintiff's negligence and fraud claims were subject to the 5-year statute of repose because they arose out of the breach of a professional duty to inform the plaintiff that a blood test indicated he was HIV-positive and were thus considered classic medical malpractice claims.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Piedmont Hospital “Piedmont” and Dr. James DeWayne Colquitt assert that the statute of repose for medical malpractice actions bars D. M.’s claims for negligence and fraud in connection with the failure to inform him of the results of a blood test performed while he was a patient at Piedmont. Thus, they contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions for summary judgment.

On May 11, 2005, Colquitt performed an appendectomy on D. M. at Piedmont after D. M. presented at the hospital’s emergency room complaining of abdominal pain.1 During the surgery, a Piedmont staff member was inadvertently exposed to D. M.’s blood or other bodily fluids, and Piedmont policy dictated that D. M.’s blood be tested for blood-borne pathogens, including HIV, to determine the risk of the employee’s exposure. Piedmont’s laboratory first used a sample of D. M.’s blood already in the lab’s possession to perform a rapid HIV test. On the morning of May 12, 2005, the rapid HIV test showed a presumptively positive result for HIV, necessitating a second confirmatory test, but Piedmont’s lab did not have a sufficient blood sample for further testing. D. M. was asked to supply a further sample, and at first he refused. However, after Colquitt explained that a blood test was needed to protect the Piedmont employee, D. M. agreed to give another sample, although he expressed reluctance about hearing the results of the test at that time. D. M. was discharged from the hospital the same day, with Colquitt’s instruction to make a follow-up appointment.

Piedmont Hosp. Inc. v. D. M.

The plaintiff's negligence and fraud claims were subject to the 5-year statute of repose because they arose out of the breach of a professional duty to inform the plaintiff that a blood test indicated he was HIV-positive and were thus considered classic medical malpractice claims.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report