Connellsville man awarded $50K for rolling over needle in hospital bed, fears infectious diseases
A Fayette County man who said he fears he was exposed to diseases from a needle stick while a patient in a Connellsville hospital has been awarded $50,000.
Brad Allen Dillinger of Connellsville filed a civil action in 2009, contending he was stuck in his right arm by a needle of unknown origin while recovering from surgery at Highlands Hospital. Dillinger had just been transferred to another room when he rolled over in bed and was stuck, according to court documents.
Dillinger contended the hospital was negligent by failing to test the needle for infectious diseases and never advised him of the needle's origins, among other reasons.
He has tested negative several times for HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases since, but he remains in fear of contracting an illness, according to the lawsuit.
In court documents, the hospital argued that the needle was of the type used only to inject medications into IV bags and never would have come into direct contact with another patient, according to the documents.
The case went to arbitration, and a panel of three attorneys awarded Dillinger $50,000, plus costs, on March 27, according to court documents.
The hospital has 30 days to appeal. No one from the law firm that represents it in the case, Dickie, McCamey and Chilcote of Pittsburgh, returned a phone call seeking comment on Thursday.
Dillinger's attorney, Nicholas L. Fiske of Pittsburgh, said the award sends a message to hospitals.
“Hospitals are responsible for taking care of their patients and ensuring their safety,” Fiske said. “He was stuck with a needle, and they threw it away and didn't do anything.”
Liz Zemba is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-601-2166 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.