10 N.Y.3d 1 (2008)
A plaintiff exposed to HIV due to negligence can recover damages for emotional distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder, beyond six months after exposure if they present prima facie evidence of continued distress, regardless of negative HIV test results.
Summary
Helen Ornstein, a nurse, was stuck by an HIV-contaminated needle while working at Bellevue Hospital. Although she tested negative for HIV, she sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress, claiming ongoing mental anguish and post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendants moved to limit damages to the six-month period following the incident, citing a lower court decision that suggested emotional distress is unreasonable after six months with a negative HIV test. The New York Court of Appeals held that Ornstein could seek damages beyond the six-month period because she presented sufficient evidence of continuing emotional distress, including a psychiatric diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The court reasoned that a rigid six-month limit is inappropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ongoing psychological harm.
Facts
On September 1, 2000, Helen Ornstein, a nurse, was stuck by a blood-filled hypodermic needle while bathing a patient with AIDS at Bellevue Hospital. She immediately began antiviral medication, experiencing side effects. She underwent periodic HIV testing, consistently testing negative. She testified that she experienced anxiety about contracting HIV until June 2002. Even after the fear of a positive test subsided, she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, including sleep disturbances and flashbacks, leading her to change her work from patient care to teaching.
Procedural History
Ornstein sued the intern and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation in May 2001. The defendants sought to limit damages to the six months following the incident, relying on the Appellate Division decision in Brown v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed. The case proceeded to trial with the damage limitation. The jury found the defendants liable, awarding Ornstein $333,000 for past pain and suffering and $15,000 for lost wages. Ornstein appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a plaintiff, who has tested negative for HIV after exposure, can recover damages for emotional distress sustained more than six months after the exposure incident, if the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence of continuing emotional distress, such as post-traumatic stress disorder?
Holding
Yes, because a rigid six-month limitation on emotional distress damages following HIV exposure is inappropriate when the plaintiff presents credible evidence of ongoing psychological harm, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, that persists beyond that period.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while plaintiffs must demonstrate actual exposure to HIV through a scientifically accepted method to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a blanket six-month limitation on damages is unwarranted when a plaintiff provides evidence of continuing emotional distress. The court distinguished this case from Brown v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., where the plaintiff refused to be tested for HIV. Here, Ornstein underwent regular testing and presented psychiatric evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder causally related to the needle-stick incident. The court stated, “a rule that restricts recovery of emotional distress damages for all plaintiffs as a matter of law based only on scientific and medical statistics—no matter how reliable those statistics may be—makes little sense if the probabilities identified by researchers were not known to the plaintiff during the relevant time frame.” The court emphasized that plaintiffs can recover for emotional harm that is a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach of duty and that has some guarantee of genuineness. The Court further stated that trial judges could preclude damages claims not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court also noted that defendants could challenge emotional distress evidence by presenting medical and scientific proof concerning the probability of contracting HIV after negative tests. The failure to mitigate damages can also be a defense. Because Ornstein presented sufficient evidence of continuing emotional distress, the six-month limitation was improper.