Lombardo v. New York University Medical Center
648 N.Y.S.2d 658, 232 A.D.2d 459, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10230 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's claim for emotional distress due to fear of contracting AIDS is legally unreasonable and non-compensable for any period beyond six months following the potential exposure, unless the plaintiff tests positive for HIV.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, an undertaker, was handling the body of a patient who had died of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
- While working, the plaintiff pricked his finger on what he alleged was the remnant of a syringe concealed within the patient's shroud.
- The incident caused the plaintiff to develop a fear that he would contract AIDS.
- The plaintiff tested negative for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) approximately two months after the incident.
- The plaintiff tested negative for HIV again approximately five months after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants in the Supreme Court of Kings County, a New York trial court, for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants moved to amend their answer to add an affirmative defense of culpable conduct and to compel the plaintiff to undergo a third HIV test.
- The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for a protective order to avoid the third HIV test.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to amend their answer and to compel the third test, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for a protective order.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff have a legally cognizable claim for emotional distress damages based on a fear of contracting AIDS for the period after they have tested negative for HIV six months post-exposure?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A plaintiff's fear of contracting AIDS is unreasonable as a matter of law after a six-month period following exposure if the plaintiff has tested negative for the virus. The court explicitly followed its holding in the companion case, Brown v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., which established that a negative HIV test six months after exposure provides reasonable medical assurance of non-infection. Therefore, any continuing fear beyond this window is not legally compensable unless the plaintiff can present evidence of a positive HIV test. The court also held that allowing the defendants to amend their answer to include a 'culpable conduct' defense was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Brown, establishes a definitive temporal limit on 'AIDS-phobia' claims in New York. It replaces a subjective standard of fear with an objective, medically-based 'six-month rule,' providing clarity and predictability for future litigation. This standard effectively bars indefinite claims for emotional distress by tying legal reasonableness to the scientifically recognized window for HIV seroconversion, thus protecting defendants from potentially limitless liability based on fears unsupported by medical evidence.
