Son of Aliquippa veteran who contracted Legionnaires' diseases sues VA
The Veteran Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System delayed testing and treating a Marine Corps veteran who contracted Legionnaires' disease while he was being treated for small cell lung cancer, the man's son says in a federal lawsuit filed on Monday.
Clark E. Compston, 74, of Aliquippa died on Nov. 14, 2011. He contracted Legionnaires' disease while being treated for cancer in the University Drive hospital on Sept. 28 and 29, his son Clint Compston of Monroeville says in the lawsuit.
Attorney Craig Fishman said his client's father died of lung cancer but argued that anything affecting lung cancer patients' breathing hurts their chances of survival.
“It definitely hastened his death,” Fishman said.
A VA spokeswoman in Washington referred questions to a Justice Department spokeswoman, who couldn't be reached for comment.
The family is pressing the lawsuit because VA officials waited a couple of days to test Compston when he started showing symptoms despite knowing that they were dealing with an outbreak, Fishman said.
More than a half-dozen people have filed claims against the government because of the outbreak, which sickened at least 22 patients from February 2011 to November 2012 at VA campuses in Oakland and O'Hara. Six of them died. At least five claimants have settled their complaints.
Brian Bowling is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.