As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

HIV test performed on me w/o my consent. Legal Rights/Action?

TCPIPTCPIP Registered User regular
edited February 2010 in Help / Advice Forum
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?

TCPIP on
«1

Posts

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    You might be able to file something with the ACLU, I seriously doubt you'll have a claim to damages of any sort unless the test was positive and you were denied coverage, certainly not enough to warrant you actually paying a lawyer out of pocket.

    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.

    Jasconius on
  • KotenkKotenk Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Are you HIV positive?

    Kotenk on
  • WildEEPWildEEP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Do we get to know what state you live in? Not to want to pry over the intarwebs, but there are states where laws might apply for this.

    WildEEP on
  • Susan DelgadoSusan Delgado Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Did you sign anything from the insurance company authorizing the physical and tests? You may not have specifically signed anything from the lab, but if it's in the fine print from the insurance company, then there you have it.

    Susan Delgado on
    Go then, there are other worlds than these.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They're sending you this new form because they messed up. If they already had your consent somewhere, they wouldn't bother giving you a chance to make noise about it.

    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.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Susan DelgadoSusan Delgado Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If you're really that upset about what's happened, you could always call the lab and speak with them about why the test was performed without consent. The paperwork they want you to sign could be for their own record keeping and not *necessarily a mistake, as you may have signed something with the insurance company allowing them to test you for whatever they felt necessary to complete your screening.

    Susan Delgado on
    Go then, there are other worlds than these.
  • TCPIPTCPIP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Kotenk wrote: »
    Are you HIV positive?

    Does that make a difference?
    Do we get to know what state you live in?

    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
    Did you sign anything from the insurance company authorizing the physical and tests?

    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

    TCPIP on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think the more important questions is, would you have signed this form if they had given it to you at the appropriate time?

    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.

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Susan DelgadoSusan Delgado Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Well, the lab order would have had to come from a physician, so I'm operating under the assumption (of course assuming is dangerous) that you visited the doctor, had a physical and then proceeded to a lab for the blood and urine work-ups. Usually the doctor will give you the written lab order to present at the lab which would have listed every test he ordered, which if you had it in your possession meant you also had time to view the labs requested and contest anything you didn't want done.

    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.

    Susan Delgado on
    Go then, there are other worlds than these.
  • RubberACRubberAC Sidney BC!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    ...Im not sure what you should be mad about?
    They messed up
    darn they checked you out for HIV

    ...so?

    RubberAC on
  • TCPIPTCPIP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Well, the lab order would have had to come from a physician, so I'm operating under the assumption (of course assuming is dangerous) that you visited the doctor, had a physical and then proceeded to a lab for the blood and urine work-ups. Usually the doctor will give you the written lab order to present at the lab which would have listed every test he ordered, which if you had it in your possession meant you also had time to view the labs requested and contest anything you didn't want done.

    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.

    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"

    TCPIP on
  • Susan DelgadoSusan Delgado Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Then talk to the lab and call the insurance company to raise your concerns. Again, I'd double check anything you've put your signature on for the insurance company if you're really upset about the test being done.

    Susan Delgado on
    Go then, there are other worlds than these.
  • TCPIPTCPIP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I think the more important questions is, would you have signed this form if they had given it to you at the appropriate time?

    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.

    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.
    ...Im not sure what you should be mad about?
    They messed up
    darn they checked you out for HIV

    ...so?

    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.

    TCPIP on
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If you haven't been inconvenienced in any way, then making up some shitstorm for an honest mistake makes you the dick.

    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.

    Jasconius on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    Unless you're being denied coverage based on the results of the test you didn't consent to, I'm not sure where you're justified in expecting damages. Especially since it seems that they admitted that it was an error to fail to inform you of the test prior to it being done.

    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.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The most that will come out of throwing a tantrum is that you'll either get a lab techie or a paper pusher who made an honest mistake fired and the lab/insurance company fined.

    Do you really want to jeopardize someone's lively hood because of a paperwork error that no reasonable person would be phased by?

    Deebaser on
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter The key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple, unimpeachable reason to existRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They would have to have checked you for HIV to give you coverage, whether you signed the form or not (I assume you have HIV) in the end the results would have been the same.

    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.

    The Black Hunter on
  • TCPIPTCPIP Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Unless you're being denied coverage based on the results of the test you didn't consent to, I'm not sure where you're justified in expecting damages. Especially since it seems that they admitted that it was an error to fail to inform you of the test prior to it being done.

    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.

    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
    They would have to have checked you for HIV to give you coverage, whether you signed the form or not (I assume you have HIV) in the end the results would have been the same.

    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.

    Not only do I NOT have HIV, but my test results were as perfect as they could possibly be :mrgreen:

    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.

    TCPIP on
  • TavataarTavataar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Sorry if someone else already posted it and I missed it, but "In order to have an HIV test in New York State, you must give your consent in writing"

    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.

    Tavataar on
    -Tavataar
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    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

    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."

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Like the person above said, you're not going to do anything to the "monolithic company," other than maybe make them fire someone at the lowest possible level who they don't give a shit about, anyhow.

    Hell, if anything, you're doing them a favor, since they can probably pick up someone new on the cheap in this economy.

    Thanatos on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Also, common sense dictates that a life insurance company is going to want to know whether you have the HIV or not. Would you have rather the lab tossed the sample and scheduled another appointment to draw blood?

    Deebaser on
  • kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They broke the law and violated your rights, according to the New York State Department of Health.

    http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/dpt/publichealth/hivhumanrights.html
    7. Is it legal for insurance companies to test applicants for HIV without their knowledge?

    No. Insurance companies must make the applicant aware they will be testing form HIV, provide general information to them and have the applicant sign a written informed consent.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2010
    There is a complaint form on one of the NY health pages that was posted.

    Doc on
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If they did an anal visitation without telling or informing you in any way beforehand I would understand why you are upset.

    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.

    Dirtmuncher on
    steam_sig.png
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    i mean all this is illegal and everything but seriously let this go

    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.

    Raneados on
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If you're considering legal action get a lawyer.

    If you're just mad then don't.

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • ChalkbotChalkbot Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I was actually surprised to see how many people in this thread were willing to give up their rights, just because they didn't see some kind of "payout" in protecting them in the given scenario.

    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.

    Chalkbot on
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm not saying he has a legal right or not because it's illegal for me to do so.

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • FiggyFiggy Fighter of the night man Champion of the sunRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    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.

    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?

    Figgy on
    XBL : Figment3 · SteamID : Figment
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    Deebaser on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    I was actually surprised to see how many people in this thread were willing to give up their rights, just because they didn't see some kind of "payout" in protecting them in the given scenario.

    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.

    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.

    B) The OP can't take the company to court (non-damage lawsuit) to force policy change under the suggestion that the company's practices aren't in line with NY state law because they sent him the form afterword noting that they forgot to tell him and are now making explicit steps to remedy. Which indicates to the court that they both recognize the fucked up and are taking steps to fix this.

    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 B) is occurring, tell the company "try to be better at this in the future" and leave it at that. I would expect something big coming from this only if there's a long pattern of this occurring, which is why you should at least say something to the aforementioned agencies just to get it on the record, but I don't think you should be expecting anything more substantive.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • BEAST!BEAST! Adventurer Adventure!!!!!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    I was actually surprised to see how many people in this thread were willing to give up their rights, just because they didn't see some kind of "payout" in protecting them in the given scenario.

    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.
    It was clearly a clerical error, they just sent the samples out for the same battery of tests as usual (since the same thing is required of all their samples) after which they realized that they never got his signature for one of them. In situations like this it seems pretty spiteful and mean to sue them, making someone lose their job over one error, when instead you could sign it (since you would have had to sign it anyway) and inform them that it IS indeed illegal to do this so they should probably watch themselves in the future or risk a lawsuit.

    Abusing the law just because you can only makes things more difficult for people who ACTUALLY deserve to use the legal system.

    BEAST! on
    dfzn9elrnajf.png
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Unless you were denied coverage, this isn't something worth protesting about. Sure, your privacy was slightly invaded, and should it have had an impact on your life aside from getting paperwork late you would have every reason to pursue action. However, as the only thing you will be doing in this is probably annoying some local judge and getting some grunt staff fired in a terrible economy for a clerical error.

    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.

    Enc on
  • ChalkbotChalkbot Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yes, I understand all your sentiments on the matter, and maybe I wasn't making my point clear enough. I wasn't lobbying for needless punishment or anything. I'm just saying that the attitude that people have toward these sorts of violations are not good for the preservation of our rights.

    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.

    Chalkbot on
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    Yes, I understand all your sentiments on the matter, and maybe I wasn't making my point clear enough. I wasn't lobbying for needless punishment or anything. I'm just saying that the attitude that people have toward these sorts of violations are not good for the preservation of our rights.

    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.

    Enc on
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Imagine if the test had come back positive.

    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.

    Donovan Puppyfucker on
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    I'm just saying that the attitude that people have toward these sorts of violations are not good for the preservation of our rights.

    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.

    Jasconius on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    File a complaint. If this is a widespread problem, your documentation will add to the evidence and accomplish the accountability you're seeking. As has been said, there is little need for legal action as a plaintiff not because of a lack of "payout", but because making the proper complaint to the proper gov. department will allow the company to be held accountable if this is anything more than a one-time screw-up.

    Otherwise follow-up on the complaint if you feel strongly.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • FiggyFiggy Fighter of the night man Champion of the sunRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Chalkbot wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Figgy on
    XBL : Figment3 · SteamID : Figment
This discussion has been closed.