 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation2/29/1996
02/29/1996
On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Linda Balderas Garcia appeals from a final summary judgment denying her claim against Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation for negligently failing to give reasonable notification that her former husband, Adalberto Balderas, probably had AIDS. Santa Rosa moved for summary judgement on the ground that it owed no duty to inform Garcia of Balderas' probable exposure to AIDS and that the statute of limitations barred her claim. The trial court granted summary judgement by a general order, from which Garcia brings the present appeal claiming by three points of error that summary judgement was improper. We reverse and remand.
According to the plaintiffs' petition, Balderas was a hemophiliac who had been infected with the AIDS virus in 1980, allegedly from blood products supplied by Santa Rosa and injected into Balderas to help his blood to clot. There is no allegation of negligence or liability on the part of Santa Rosa for its initial transmission of AIDS to Balderas. However, as knowledge of AIDS increased, Santa Rosa became aware in the mid-1980s that its blood products had been infected with the virus and that Balderas was probably infected. Santa Rosa scheduled Balderas for yearly physical examinations, but allegedly never notified him that he might be infected with the HIV virus. Balderas did not keep his yearly appointments, and thus did not learn of his infection with AIDS until he became ill and was tested in December 1989. In the meantime, Balderas and Garcia had met in 1987 and were married on March 12, 1988.
Balderas and Garcia filed the present lawsuit against Santa Rosa on May 21, 1991, alleging causes of action for both negligent failure to notify and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs alleged that, had Balderas sought medical treatment at the time that Santa Rosa became aware of his potential infection with AIDS, he could have extended his life. In addition, Garcia alleged her own possible infection with AIDS and the resulting emotional distress at having placed herself at risk for contracting AIDS during the year that she lived with Balderas prior to learning of his infection.
Santa Rosa moved for summary judgement on the grounds that it breached no duty to notify the plaintiffs of Balderas' possible exposure to AIDS, that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the limitations provisions of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i Section(s) 10.01 (Vernon Pamph. 1996), and finally that it negated as a matter of law the first two elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs filed a response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, claiming among other things that their causes of action are based on negligence rather than medical malpractice and that a fact issue exists regarding the attempts to notify, and that the relevant limitations period did not begin to run until plaintiffs discovered Balderas' exposure to AIDS in December 1989.
The trial court granted a final summary judgement against Linda Garcia on all of her claims against Santa Rosa, from which she has perfected the present appeal.
By her first and third points of error, Garcia contends generally that Santa Rosa had a duty to provide reasonable notification that Balderas was probably infected with the AIDS virus, and that her cause of action is based on negligence rather than medical malpractice. Garcia asserts that a fact issue exists as to whether Santa Rosa provided reasonable notification.
We first determine
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|