I have an appt. with a personal injury attorney for next week, so this probably will end up in a lawsuit.
On the risks, the doctors said that FyA and C would be more common in other blood types, and my fiancee is A+. So, if either are positive on his screening the chance of hemo(somthing) disease (basically anemia) is 50%, so that would create a need for an intrauterine transfusion or immediate emergency c-section.
A lawsuit would probably be based on the ground that they choose not to screen for antigens that they know exist and can cause these problems; in that I would have to be considered extremely high risk in any pregnancy, if I have to have a transfusion my body might break down the blood and make it useless so I would die anyway, and emotional distress caused by the condition.
I’m pretty sure you can only sue without damages if fraud is involved, but I’m not a lawyer. I’m only remembering something someone that’s in law school said.
Yes. Sorta. You can sue for injunctions and whatnot. Then again, ignoring legal definitions, resolutions in equity generally come about because you were “damaged” in some way. So that may mean there were “damages,” but potentially not necessarily the damages lawyers think of.
However, to get money, you need to prove you were actually damaged.
I would imagine precedent has already been set for someone suing a blood bank / hospital for failing to test/screen for potentially harmful antibodies. I don’t see how it’d be much different than suing for anything else missed in testing prior to a transfusion, and that data would be readily available.
Maybe one of the lawyer type people here could help you out. For $350/hour, of course.
Yes, you can sue for the tort of exposure. Lots of workers exposed to asbestos sued in the 80s and 90s. Many hadn’t developed mesothelioma or asbestosis yet, but their chances of doing so had increased exponentially. They argued that they needed either (1) money to pay for monitoring and preventive treatment, or (2) in lieu of actual “damages,” court-administered medical monitoring. This looks a lot like the asbestos cases.
Hemophiliacs who got HIV+ transfusions, but hadn’t developed AIDS yet, have sued drug companies that provided the blood samples. This also looks pretty similar.
That’s basically right. Kasey, you should find a medical malpractice, products liability or general tort lawyer and ask him about this.
Maybe one of the lawyer type people here could help you out. For $350/hour, of course.
Only $285. But I suppose I will make this pro bono.
There IS damage in ways. Because of this condition, I have to be monited MUCH more closely than a normal woman. This means being seen 8 times a month rather than 1, and having 10++++ ultrasounds, likely c-section and in-hospital bedrest racking up thousands and thousands more in medical bills that my insurance might not keep covering.
Also, I’m at risk in case of another accident- I cannot receive normal blood transfusions now. My blood can basically killl of the red blood cells in the transfused blood.
And yes Charlemagne, I am looking for a reason to sue. Because they fucked up. And when you fuck up someone’s life like that, you should have to pay for it.
“You don’t have to worry about transfused blood. We’re running tests to match it up to yours; there’s little chance that we would miss anything.”
What the person ordering the transfusion said to me when I showed concern regarding transfusion.
What they didnt mention is that they choose not to look for some stuff. Sounds fraudulent to me.
No it isn’t. Because there is no dead baby. Babies die during child birth all the time, so do the mothers giving birth to them. But if anything happens THIS time, its because of a botched transfusion that may have not even been botched up at all. This is all purely hypothetical. And there is no case yet. If she gives birth with no problem, there is no case. If there IS a problem but she cannot prove they did something wrong, there is no case.
No, Kasey has a strong claim for something like exposure–maybe medical malpractice or products liability. She has had and will have to pay for increased medical monitoring due to her condition. She must take other expensive preventive steps to ensure her pregnancy ends well. From what she’s said, this sounds permanent, meaning future pregnancies are similarly endangered and require the same added costs. My understanding is that once you get a C-section, you must get C-sections from then on. If Kasey has to get one here, that means her ability to have kids naturally is destroyed – a loss of its own – and also that a costly and dangerous procedure will be needed to deliver every future kid. There may be extra pain and suffering, and the fear of a failed pregnancy may cause emotional distress. If she can’t get transfusions, that may make her own medical treatment more difficult and costly. I think she has plenty of legal ground to stand on. See my previous post.
I wonder if you are being tongue-in-cheek. You asked recently if you had a claim against your boss for letting you do the work of a higher position without increasing your salary, after you said nothing about it for months. I assure you, that was a far shakier claim, and I figured you were “just looking for a reason to sue.”
Asking a question about a tiny part of XWing’s post that probably doesn’t even matter…
Are C-sections actually dangerous? Costly, sure. But dangerous? I’ve never heard them described as dangerous before. I’m not saying they are or aren’t. I’ve just never heard them described that way before.
Cesearean sections are a major abdominal surgery. There is an increased risk of maternal death and of infection, problems with internal organs(prolapse, bowel damage or blockage) a long recovery, chance of the uterus splitting open in future pregnancies/labors, and much more. Plus, most doctors do not allow vaginal delivery after cesarean anymore, so any future pregnancy would end in c-section.
And to reply to another post, there is permanent damage, a baby doesn’t have to die for there to be so. This condition is permanent. Not only is there a chance any child I carry would be killed by my red blood cells, but I have a higher chance of dying after an accident because of alllergic reaction to a transfusion.
This botched transfusion IS NoT hypothetical. I’ve had the bloodwork done. The transfusion is the only way I could have been exposed to these antigens.
Not to mention the mental hell of spending the next 7 months trucking two hours back and forth to Dartmouth, hoping that the ultrasound shows a baby alive.
Babies born by c-section do not have the benefit of being ‘squeezed’ in the birth canal; there is still fluid in their lungs and they often spend time in the neonatal unit having their throat suctioned or on oxygen.
I was born like that, I was in a machine for a couple of days. I was a month early too. For the record, given that I come from a family prone to dying early from all sorts of shit, I’ve been told that I’m exceedingly healthy and have no noticeable deficiencies. Social awkwardness notwithstanding.
So… well, I guess what I mean is that things can still work out perfectly fine with a lot of shit against you.
