Rules on Right to Recovery Different for Private v. Public Hospitals
The recently decided case of Pravata v. UMDNJ (11/9/06) confirms that claims for emotional stress due to fear of HIV or Hepatitis C virus because a plaintiff was stuck by a needle will not be viable against a public entity such as the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. That is because claims against UMDNJ (or any other public entity) are governed by the Tort Claims Act which provides various immunities and limitations on a patient’s right to recover. In Pravata, the plaintiff was a corrections officer who was pricked by a needle in the pocket of an inmate’s pants. It was believed the inmate had procured the needle while a patient at UMDNJ. The inmate subsequently tested positive for HIV. Pravata filed a claim for emotional distress due to his fear of becoming infected with the HIV and/or Hepatitis C virus. The claim was dismissed because the Tort Claims Act does not allow claims for purely “emotional distress” absent actual physical injury or “aggravating circumstances.” The Trial Court, and later on appeal, the Appellate Court, found that being stuck with a needle on a person who has HIV not to be a sufficient “aggravating circumstance” to allow Pravata’s claim to go forward. Had plaintiff’s claim been against a private facility, his claim for emotional distress likely could have gone forward as private hospitals and employees are not granted the same immunities and limitations as public hospitals and employees. In fact, I am pursuing such a case against a private hospital currently. In that case, an electrical contractor working at a Jersey shore hospital was pricked by a needle inadvertently left lying on the floor by an operating room.
Related Articles:
- De Laroche v. Advanced Laparoscopic Association et al. (A-5403-1474) Decided 2/28/2017
- Clarification on the Statute of Limitations for “Survival” Claims – Warren v. Muenzen, 448 N.J. Super. 52, (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016) December 7, 2016)
- Settling Defendant Charge Need Not Always Be Given – Hernandez v. Chekenian, No. L-11038 14, 2016 WL 6024008, (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. July 15, 2016)
- Vascular Surgeon Not Qualified to Testify Against Family Practitioner Who Performed a Vascular Procedure – Afonso v. Bejjani – A-1623-15T4
- Federally Qualified Health Center Entitled to New Jersey’s Cap on Charitable Immunity for Hospitals – S.M. v. United States of America – CA No. 13-5702, USDC – DNJ