The Case Of The Estate Of Julie Amos, Et Al, V. Vanderbilt University?

The case of the Estate of Julie Amos, et al. v. Vanderbilt University, et al., was a civil suit based on negligence claims against a medical facility (Vanderbilt University) for failing to inform a patient of potential health risks that posed a threat to the patient and the patient’s family. Julie Story underwent jaw surgery in August of 1984 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. She was not informed that she had received a significant blood transfusion during the surgery. One of the four units of blood she received was infected with HIV. The following spring, an antibody test to detect HIV in blood was developed. Vanderbilt then began testing blood prior to transfusions. Beginning in 1987, Vanderbilt began offering free HIV tests to patients
The causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs included wrongful birth, negligent failure to warn, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Their claims were based on Vanderbilt’s failure to notify Julie of her potential risk for contracting HIV following her blood transfusion. Unfortunately, complications from AIDS also claimed Mrs. Amos’ life in 1992, however her husband, Ron, continued forward with the
Minor case established the precedence for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and therefore those requirements should also be required for this case. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee disagreed with this claim. The jury argued that the special requirements determined in the Camper v. Minor case apply only to cases that are based solely on emotional distress, not cases that seek damage for emotional distress in addition to physical injuries or other losses. The jury believed that “stand-alone” claims of emotional distress can easily result in fraudulent claims, therefore special requirements are necessary to help prevent fraud. They argued that this was only the case with “stand-alone” cases, however, and that precedence of several other cases involving multiple claims of damages (not just emotional distress) did not require such proof. Since this case was not based solely on emotional anguish, the court overruled the Court of Appeals’ argument that Mr. and Mrs. Amos did not present sufficient proof of their emotional anguish to meet the requirements. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that while the hospital was not obligated to inform Ron Amos of Julie’s potential risk, the hospital did owe him a duty in that they were obligated to warn Mrs. Amos of the risks associated with the blood transfusion, so she could have taken precautions to avoid transmitting the disease to her future