Mass. Jury Hears Suit Against Doctor by Patient Misdiagnosed with HIV

December 7, 2007

  • December 7, 2007 at 1:32 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What a bogus lawsuit. This matter should be dropped and that idiot Serrano should have to pay for all court costs and for all atty fees for the defendants. This idiot completely brought this all upon herself and now she wants financial gain for her own stupidity.

  • December 7, 2007 at 1:35 am
    Daniel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a tragic situation considering how strong HIV meds are and how they effect the body.I can only hope and pray that whatever damage has been done is not irreversable.

  • December 7, 2007 at 1:57 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It appears that the doctor’s action may fall below the standard of care. While the plaintiff has some issues for not allowing the doctor to contact prior providers, the treating doctor should have had additional testing done to determine if she was actually HIV positive, especially over the 9 year treatment period. It will be interesting to see the verdict in this one.

  • December 7, 2007 at 2:11 am
    SFOInsuranceLady says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sam,
    What I don’t get is why wouldn’t Serrano allow her treating doctor contact her previous doctor(s) for her files? You would thnk that you would want your new doctor would want to know everything about you in order to treat you properly, right? Also, since when do doctors rely on the opinion of their patients as to the status of their condition? A good doctor would want to be sure and run their own tests. The whole situation sounds fishy to me. (False negative?????)
    Unless we now have a cure for the HIV virus.

  • December 7, 2007 at 2:21 am
    Magic Johnson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Two things here: 1. Maybe she had the AIDS and the treatment cured it. 2. What if the doctor ordered the test again. The insurance company would not pay for an unnecessary test and I doubt that Serrano would have paid if the Dr. told her it wasn’t covered under insurance. She ought to be relieved that she has been cured and is going to live! But that would mean getting off Gov’t disability and getting a real job.

  • December 7, 2007 at 3:34 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You bring up the issues that I too question as being a problem for the plaintiff. I agree that if you are diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening illness that you should want your doctor to have as much information as possible. The length of time that she treated makes the cynical side of me wonder if the entire situation was not kind of set-up to get her off the mean streets and on to easy street!

  • December 9, 2007 at 8:20 am
    gary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m one that often feels that the medical community needs more protection from frivolous lawsuits. However, this woman has a case. If misdiagnosed once, ok. But to go on for years and years. That’s a bad doctor. http://www.phoenix-life-insurance.com

  • December 10, 2007 at 8:54 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m one all for tort reforms and will usually argue in favor of the doctors but this one sounds (at least) mostly legitimate to my untrained ears.

    As for insurance paying, considering the first test was “annoymous” I have a feeling it was likely at some type of “free” clinic. If someone gives me a diagnosis that’s a death sentance I’m getting a second opinion (regardless of cost or insurance) before I start taking a cocktail of drugs that should choke a mule.

    The doctor screwed up. But the patient has some limited culpability as well.

  • December 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “She says her medical ordeal began after an anonymous test at a clinic in Fitchburg showed that she was HIV positive.”

    how is any test anonymous?? the clinic that performed the test should be held responsible. she should be somewhat held responsible as well, since she did not want the doctor to get the information from the other test. now, the doctor that was doing the medication, should have run a second test – not only for his own verification, but knowing that these meds are dangerous.

  • December 10, 2007 at 4:06 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Woodchuck: Most “free clinics” do AIDS/STD tests as annoymous. I’m assuming it’s the same everywhere but that’s how it’s done in Cleveland, OH where I used to do some voulenteer work in college.

    You go in, they draw the blood, give you a dry cleaning tag with a number on it, you wait two weeks, call them back, give the receptionist the number and (s)he tells you what’s going to be turning green and falling off of you next.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*