The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
HIV test performed on me w/o my consent. Legal Rights/Action?
TCPIP
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
H/A, hopefully you can inform me of my options here. At the beginning of February, I had some blood work done as part of the life insurance underwriting process. I was told they were doing things like checking to make sure I didn't have diabetes or high cholesterol, etc. Flash forward to today when in the mail I get two envelopes from the insurance company. I open the first one, and it has a NY State HIV test consent form along with a note basically saying "Oops, we remembered to have you sign all the paperwork, except for this whole HIV thing. Sign this and get it back to us ASAP. KTHNXBYE." Now, this is all news to me, because they never said anything about any kind of HIV test. I guess it makes sense in retrospect, since this is for an insurance policy, but still, I would have liked to have known in advance just what was being done with my blood (and urine, too).
I open the second envelope, only to find my blood work results, WITH the results from the already completed HIV test. So here I have one piece of paper granting them the right to test me for HIV, and another piece of paper that already has the results on it. Now here's another weird thing. The consent form has already been dated, and dated over a week after the blood was drawn and all the other paperwork signed. But the blood work results are prominently labelled as having been done in the lab five days before what would be my date of consent if I sign my name and send back the consent form.
This all seems very sketchy to me. I'm kind of pissed that they didn't tell me about this HIV test until after the fact. It's not legal to test someone for HIV without consent, right? I'm a legal resident of NY state, if that makes any difference. I honestly feel violated. I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but this is bothering me enough to come the H/A and ask:
What are my legal rights, and what legal actions could I take against the insurance company for having pulled a fast one on me?
I open the second envelope, only to find my blood work results, WITH the results from the already completed HIV test. So here I have one piece of paper granting them the right to test me for HIV, and another piece of paper that already has the results on it. Now here's another weird thing. The consent form has already been dated, and dated over a week after the blood was drawn and all the other paperwork signed. But the blood work results are prominently labelled as having been done in the lab five days before what would be my date of consent if I sign my name and send back the consent form.
This all seems very sketchy to me. I'm kind of pissed that they didn't tell me about this HIV test until after the fact. It's not legal to test someone for HIV without consent, right? I'm a legal resident of NY state, if that makes any difference. I honestly feel violated. I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but this is bothering me enough to come the H/A and ask:
What are my legal rights, and what legal actions could I take against the insurance company for having pulled a fast one on me?
TCPIP on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
This sounds like an ACLU kind of thing. Especially since insurance companies are a hot topic this year.
The other thing you need to consider is that, assuming the test was negative, you weren't going to get coverage unless you signed the form anyway, you break even if the test was negative.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
There's probably nothing you can do about this, unless (like jasconius said) you were actually denied coverage based on the results of the test. And if that's the case, receiving the coverage is probably contingent upon giving consent to be tested anyway. So you'll have a pretty hard time showing any actual damages if you are inclined to take it to court.
If NY has specific laws about testing consent then maybe there's something there, but you'd have to talk to someone local.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Does that make a difference?
As I said in the OP, I'm a legal resident of NY state, and the consent form they sent me says NY state on it
God, I think I must have signed 30 different pieces of paper in 60 places, not to mention 136 initials. Maybe? I know for sure that I signed documents stating what kind of insurance I'm applying for, and that I don't skydive, smoke, do drugs, etc
edit: The day I had my physical I most definitely did sign off on having the physical done, blood and urine samples taken, etc. And I knew that was all going to happen, that my blood would be tested. But all they ever talked about was diabetes and cholesterol and high blood pressure, etc. Nothing about HIV
You have every right to be outraged, but if you would have just signed it anyway, it's probably a moot point.
You get to have some fun yelling at people in the meantime though.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Did you have forms or paperwork from the insurance that you took into the physical? That would have most likely listed what they wanted checked over and what tests they wanted. Also, if you have copies of what you signed from the insurance I'd read those. They could argue that if you were made aware (even passively) of what was going to take place that you had given simple consent to perform the tests.
They messed up
darn they checked you out for HIV
...so?
I never saw a doctor. I got a call from a nurse who said "Hello, I'm calling regarding your INSURANCE COMPANY life insurance policy. When can I schedule an appointment for a physical?" and then she came to my house, took my blood pressure, had me stand on a portable scale, made me pee in a cup, and then stuck a needle in my arm and left. She had me sign several documents, but I never saw ANYTHING about HIV. The note that came with the consent form even said "Woops, you were suppose to sign this but it looks like someone fucked up"
I very well may not have. I was having reservations at the time about even going through the whole process. It's all incredibly invasive. They pull every single medical record that exists and contact all the medical professionals you've ever seen for detailed write ups. They look at every detail of your life. I've been told it's the most conservative underwriting process in the industry.
I'm mad because it's a massive invasion of my privacy. It's a breech of trust between me and the medical people who checked me out and the insurance company I'm suppose to be trusting to look after my loved ones if I should pass away. The fact that there's a separate consent form just for HIV testing should tell you something about how touchy a subject this all is.
If you think they do it as a motive to catch sick people without consent, then there are a billion civil rights and other left wing activists groups who will gladly hear out your story and add it to their movement.
But really, if you are seeking damages, you should probably get over that pretty quick if your test was negative and they gave you coverage.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
But it didn't cost you anything, you would have had to give blood anyhow, you're not being denied anything of value, and they've done everything they can at this point to make the situation right. What else do you want?
What's the point of this thread even?
If you're looking for legal advice, talk to a lawyer. No one else can advise you of your legal rights, and no, nobody pulled a "fast one" on you. Get over yourself.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Do you really want to jeopardize someone's lively hood because of a paperwork error that no reasonable person would be phased by?
They aren't using this information against you maliciously, it's a part of their job to know everything they can about a person before insuring them.
I don't know that I'm after damages necessarily. I just think that monolithic companies should be held accountable to the law. Otherwise what's to stop them from trampling all over the little guy? Oh crap, I guess they already do that, don't they? :x
The point of this thread is to find out if what they did was against the law, and if it is, then to find out what, if anything, I can do about it. I know that no one on the internet can technically give me legal advice. Nevertheless, I've seen hundreds of threads in H/A over the years where people have asked for general legal council, whether it's about roommates and landlords and leases or contracts at work or renters insurance or whatever.
Finally, if asking for my consent for a medical test after the test has already been performed and the results sent out isn't a fast one, then what is it? Just an honest mistake? I think by definition if something is illegal then it's not "just" a mistake. But again, I don't really know if it's illegal. That's why I'm here in H/A :P
Not only do I NOT have HIV, but my test results were as perfect as they could possibly be
I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I thought there was malicious intent. But you don't have to have malicious intent to break the law (again, if it actually is against the law) and I feel very strongly about preserving privacy rights. I'm also furious over warrantless wiretapping (which is why I've basically lost all respect for the NSA). I guess what I'm saying is that there's a consent form for a reason. Someone (the government? society? jeebus?) must think that it's important.
However, since that might be dated, there was another website from 2009 talking about NY legislation to potentially allow physicians / hospitals to perform HIV tests without consent in order to help stem the spread of HIV.
I know that in MD you must sign a form before a test stating that you understand the ramifications of potentially testing positive.
So, let's say there is a law that says they can't test you for specific things without your consent; that makes it grounds for civil action. You're (ultimately) going to get to court and a judge is going to ask you "so, what are you seeking damages for, exactly?"
And you won't have an answer. And that will be the end of your "case."
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Hell, if anything, you're doing them a favor, since they can probably pick up someone new on the cheap in this economy.
http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/dpt/publichealth/hivhumanrights.html
But I imagine they gave you lots of folders and brochures and they might even have a website with the details of the bloodwork needing to be done. Even if they didnt tell you, you could maybe have read it on the website. In this ignorance isnt an excuse. By the way you want their product. So before you complain read everything they sent you and on the interwebs. If it isnt in there you should definitly complain about it.
call up and just remind them that they violated the law and their own practices. I'm pretty sure they didn't do it on purpose and would love you to let them know this is going on, if it is indeed a common thing.
As for legal actions? Don't do anything. Why would you?
You weren't really injured or anything.
It sounds like an isolated incident. Let them know what happened.
If you're just mad then don't.
To those people, I would point out that it's not money or the discipline of a random lab tech that the OP would be seeking, it was the preservation of his (and our) rights. If you just sit idly by whenever your rights are violated because "It doesn't really effect anything", guess what happens? You no longer have those rights.
I suggest you all go read the book 1984 (or re-read for some of you) and reflect on what a world without rights would be like (Hint: Shitty). Then consider how many people (some possibly in your own family lineage) spent their lives (literally) so that you could have those rights, and what they might think of you pissing on them because you can't cash them in for sweet rims.
Except in this case, the company admitted their error and is making steps to correct it.
No one is saying to bend over, but what does the OP want to happen here? They made a mistake, they pointed it out, and now he wants what, exactly?
Damages? Not going to happen.
An employee fired? Well, that's kind of a dick move.
He doesn't need to call the company to inform them of their error, because they just informed him of their error. No one is saying that the company isn't in the wrong for testing without consent, or that companies should be able to test without consent, or the OP shouldn't be peeved that he was tested without consent. We're all saying that what is done is done, they fucked up, and that's that.
If I go to the grocery store and the clerk rings through a smoked ham twice, then a minute later realizes her error and voids out the second ham, am I going to raise hell about it? She corrected the error and I am not inconvenienced in the slightest. I could raise a stink to the tune of claiming the clerk is incompetent. I may get her reprimanded, but more than likely I'll just come off as an asshole.
I mean, an HIV test without consent isn't exactly the same thing as a smoked ham, but the OP is just as unharmed at this point. He may feel his rights have been violated, but the company was the one who told him they fucked up. Alternatively, they could have just never told him what happened. Better solution?
I can say with 100% confidence that no one in my family's history died to protect their right to additional paperwork, which is seriously all this is.
It's a clerical error, not something worthy of a quixotic campaign against the system. Prioritize and find something worth rebelling against.
It's nice to think of rights in the complete abstract, but this conception of 'defending your rights' runs into the contextual problems of:
A) The OP in this case can't seek damages through a court to force policy change, because as far as we're aware this test hasn't actually affected anything and as such there are no damages to speak of.
As to the OP, you could conceivably go to the ACLU or find the associated state regulatory agency that would oversee compliance with these regulations but I would imagine they'd look into the situation, see that
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Abusing the law just because you can only makes things more difficult for people who ACTUALLY deserve to use the legal system.
From where I stand, the only malignancy evident in the entire situation is your desire for justice. It's a paperwork error, bad for repeated practice but otherwise harmless in your situation. Let it go and pick a more necessary fight.
By all your accounts, this event was made perfectly okay by the fact that they took steps to "correct" their mistake in the end. With that I (politely) disagree. As far as I can ascertain from what you guys are saying; you all think it would be perfectly okay for them to test everyone for HIV without consent, as long as they eventually sent out the consent form. That is where I take issue with all your perspectives.
I don't think most of us feel this way. Your assumption here is that this is standard procedure. It's not. They do the consent forms all at once, on the day you sign the other forms. In this situation, they neglected to do this. A paperwork error, and one that could potentially have consequences, yes, but in this instance there are no consequences. Should there have been issues, such as his test flagging him as positive and him getting denied coverage, yes he should file a suit. And he would win, because this paperwork error is illegal in his state.
However, in this instance, no harm was done by this error. Pressing the matter will land no gain for either party or the law. The law already exists. No one was harmed by this aside from his expectations, which aren't even a factor as he is not getting denied or changed coverage by the results.
It's a pick your battles situation. Yes, they screwed up. But in this instance it is negligible and all pursuing it will do is irritate a judge and waste a bunch of people's time.
Then you would have much bigger problems to worry about.
As it is, just let it fly man.
Don't clog the justice system with frivolous crap.
So run for office or start a blog, jesus...
If this has got your panties in a bunch then you are in for a horrible time for the next 60 years.
People make mistakes, a mistake was made, the least constructive thing you can do is hire a lawyer and take a company to court over it.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Otherwise follow-up on the complaint if you feel strongly.
Pretty much classic straw man here.
No one is saying that here. This was an isolated incident, and the company is the one who pointed it out. If the OP came here and said that this lab did the same thing to dozens of people this year, that would be an entirely different situation.
You continue to wave your bloodied flag about protecting your rights, but again, what do you expect to happen in the OP's situation?
Just so we're clear:
- He had blood work done and signed a bunch of consent forms.
- He got a letter in the mail with the results, including an HIV test, which he never agreed to
- He also got a consent form in the mail for said HIV test
Should he be paid $1,000,000 because they checked for something in his blood before he signed a piece of paper? Should the lab technician be fired because she overlooked something while doing possibly dozens and dozens of these tests? Keep in mind she did not simply throw away the test and pretend it never happened, she sent the results along with a consent form as a "Look, we fucked up."
Maybe the OP should get a coupon for a free steak at Applebee's.
The company fucked up. They know they fucked up. They told the OP that they fucked up. Yes, they "violated his rights," but aside from owning up to that fact, there is nothing else they can do.