Couple lose lawsuit over false-positive HIV test

A woman who claimed that her life was upended by a false-positive HIV test result has lost a lawsuit she and her common-law partner filed against a Clarendon-based medical laboratory for psychological harm.

The decision by Supreme Court Judge Chester Stamp was handed down on June 3 after a three-year wait and comes more than 15 years after Indiana Prendergast got the initial diagnosis that she was HIV-positive.

The test was done in January 2010 at Spaldings Diagnostix Medical Laboratory at the direction of an insurance company, where Prendergast was seeking to obtain a life insurance policy.

Justice Stamp wrote in his decision that the claim for negligence filed by Prendergast and her spouse, Omar Willis, could not be sustained, noting that the medical lab did not breach its duty of care.

He said the evidence in the case established that the operators of the lab adhered to its standard operating procedures, acted in compliance with accepted medical practices, and took appropriate steps to ensure the proper handling and communication of the test results.

“Any psychological distress suffered by the claimants (Prendergast and her spouse) cannot be attributed to any wrongful act or omission on the part of the defendant (the lab),” Stamp wrote.

“The occurrence of a false-positive result, while unfortunate, is a known possibility in preliminary HIV screening and does not, in and of itself, establish negligence.”

CONTACTED BY LAB

Prendergast complained in the lawsuit that two months after she did the HIV test, a sales representative at the lab contacted her spouse and told him that “something was wrong” and suggested that she visit the lab.

She made inquiries at the lab and was told by an employee that they would have her private physician contact her about the result of the test.

The operators of the laboratory contended in their response that the test result was sent to Prendergast’s private doctor – located “a couple buildings” away – a “few days” after it became available and that it was his responsibility to communicate it to his patient.

Prendergast contended that another two months elapsed before a representative at the insurance company told her in May 2010 that her policy had been terminated and that she should see a doctor.

By this time, according to the lawsuit, rumours began circulating in her community, located approximately three miles from the lab, that she had tested positive for HIV.

Eventually, Prendergast visited her private doctor on July 13, 2010, where he informed her that the result of her preliminary HIV test was positive.

A second blood sample she gave her doctor for confirmatory testing was deemed unsuitable because the quantity was insufficient and there was a two-day delay after the blood was collected, the lab contended.

Prendergast refused to provide a third blood sample.

A subsequent test conducted by a different medical facility in August 2010 confirmed that she was HIV-negative.

But by this time, according to the claim by Prendergast and her spouse, the effect of the false-positive diagnosis had already taken an emotional toll.

Prendergast claimed that she suffered “significant harm”, including suicidal thoughts, severe depression, insomnia, crying spells, a loss of appetite, decreased libido, and anxiety.

She complained, too, that her relationship with Willis was “profoundly affected” with increased tensions and mistrust “leading to the deterioration of their intimate life”.

Prendergast claimed that the false-positive diagnosis also created a financial burden, which further compounded her distress, necessitating cognitive behavioural therapy.

Willis also complained about the adverse impact on his psychological well-being, including adjustment disorder with depressed mood, decreased libido, financial strain, and stigma.

They asked the court to find that Spaldings Diagnostix failed to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of the test, the transmission of the result, the preservation of confidentiality, and in their treatment of Prendergast.

However, Justice Stamp said he was satisfied that the lab neither improperly disclosed nor mishandled the test results “in any way”.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com