In June, 1991, plaintiff Williamson, an employee of a cleaning contractor, suffered a puncture wound from a lancet while cleaning a medical office. The lancet, which is a kind of surgical knife, was concealed in the rubbish—a method of disposal violating regulatory requirements. She now sues for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the fear of developing AIDS or hepatitis. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant physicians on the ground that it hasn't yet been established that she contracted either disease, despite three and a half years of testing since the incident.
Held: Reversed and remanded for trial. Proof of actual exposure to AIDS is not a prerequisite to recovery for a period of emotional distress caused by the reasonable fear of the possibility of developing the dreaded disease. It cannot be concluded as a matter of law that the plaintiff reacted unreasonably or unforeseeably. Fearing that she might have been exposed to HIV, "it was not unreasonable that she would be greatly upset during the period of time that was necessary to obtain medical assurances that she was not infected."
 | Michael Welner, M.D. Chairman The Forensic Panel |
Dr. Welner comments: Courts in over a dozen states have decided cases in which a person has claimed money damages for his or her fear of contracting AIDS. Yet, as of this writing, only one medical article on such fears has been uncovered in my extensive literature search. Is this a case of an illness being a creating of litigations? Or is this yet another reason why DSM IV (the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which seems to occupy the counsel's table in every trial of a mental health issue) is not representative of the range of psychiatric conditions that can be the basis for tort liability?
Phobias are, by definition, irrational fears. The chance of contracting HIV from a needle stick—where no proof even exists that the involved syringe is infected—is infinitesimally small. How can an irrational fear, a phobia such as this, ever be regarded as reasonable and hence actionable when caused by negligence? Consider, though, that fear of the unknown HIV status can impact romantic relationships and sexual activity, as well as a sense of body integrity and self esteem.
The trial court in Williamson, like the courts of most states, required a finding of actual exposure to HIV for a successful claim of emotional distress, but the Superior Court ruled that even though no damage has occurred when the claimant has tested negative for HIV, there may still be a basis for a successful claim of negligence. The Court thus decided to handle this fear of AIDS case differently than it might have handled fear of tuberculosis as a result of being coughed on in the subway, fear of Lyme Disease as a result suffering an insect bite, or fear of driving as a result of having been involved in a near car accident. This is a reflection of the heavy exposure of the ravages of this disease to the lay public, and the resultant widespread hysteria—a latter day "War of the Worlds" broadcast. It remains to be established, given the variability of AIDS awareness in this country, what is the length of time that a person who has tested HIV negative would reasonably be expected to fear contracting the dreaded disease.
