79
STAR-ADVERTISER / JAN. 2015
The Blood Bank of Hawaii on Dillingham Blvd. An Oahu man is suing the Blood Bank of Hawaii, the American Red Cross and others, alleging he became HIV-positive from a blood transfusion during bypass surgery in 2011.
A man’s lawsuit against Blood Bank of Hawaii, the American Red Cross and others alleges he became HIV-positive from a blood transfusion during bypass surgery in 2011.
In 2013, the man tested positive for HIV with AIDS, the lawsuit said. The blood bank and Red Cross provided blood-transfusion products to hospitals in Hawaii, including the one where he underwent surgery, the lawsuit said. Other unidentified corporations and agencies are defendants.
The defendants “failed, neglected, and/or refused to conduct a full and complete screening and testing of the blood that was transfused into” the man, according to the lawsuit, which was first filed in state court last year, but was transferred to federal court earlier this week at the Red Cross’ request.
A hearing is scheduled for March 31.
American Red Cross spokeswoman Kara Lusk Dudley said in a statement that their investigation has found that the claims against the organization have no merit.
“The safety of American Red Cross donors and recipients of blood products is our top priority,” the statement said. “The Red Cross performs laboratory tests for multiple infectious disease markers, including HIV, on every unit of donated blood.”
Attorneys will fully investigate the allegations, Blood Bank of Hawaii said in a statement.
“Safety of the blood supply is paramount and we work diligently each day towards zero-risk for all patients in need of blood,” the statement said. “There is approximately a 1 in 2 million chance of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion. … Nationally, there have been fewer than 10 cases of HIV being transmitted through a blood transfusion since 1999 with more than 20 million blood components being transfused and screened each year.”
The statement said 13 tests – for infectious diseases including HIV – are performed on donated blood.
The Oahu man who is suing plus his wife and children are not identifying themselves. The lawsuit says doing so would subject them to public ridicule.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
I thought that Obama’s Health Department just cleared HIV people to give blood??? What gives??
No, the FDA is now again allowing gay men to donate blood. Not people with HIV.
Gay lifestyle, prostitution = High risk HIV
Island Mayor + P Card + Lap Dancing = High risk HIV
OMG!! Now someone is going to catch “gayness” from that blood!!
Perhaps if it was you that had just contracted HIV you would not be mocking this tragedy.
Which is why I no longer donate blood, since I will not accept a transfusion from the Blood Bank.
So what are you going to do when you are away from family members, get in an accident and need blood? You may be unconscious when you are given blood in a hospital.
For planned surgery you can bank your blood. Only problem is if you need more.
localguy, you cannot bank your own blood. Moreover, you cannot donate your blood specifically for friends and relatives. smh, what do you think the Blood Bank has, individual savings accounts? And palani, I wouldn’t brag about your nonsharing “what’s in it for me?”
attitude
That makes about as much sense as everything else you write here.
Wait a minute….why isn’t anyone looking at the wife for answers. What if she was cheating or what if either one of them got a tattoo which is so popular right now.
Why would you lie like this ? Are you simply incapable of ever being truthful ?
Blood transfusion in 2011…tested positive for HIV in 2013. I hope Wifey got herself tested too.
I would think it would be pretty easy to prove that Plaintiff wasn’t infected through the blood transfusion, because the Blood Bank tracks each bag. If no one else was infected by blood given by the same donor, then the he’s got very poor grounds.
I was thinking the same thing! How did he find out and what was he being tested for to find the HIV.
Sounds hinky to me.
I think if the man is going to accuse Blood Bank of Hawai’i and the American Red Cross of negligence and he stands to gain a substantial sum then he should be identified publicly. This crap about suing with impunity only encourages more frivolous suits with the promise of a payday. He’s smearing these organizations’ good name. Turnabout is fair play.
I’m guessing he’s insisting on anonymity because he’s afraid once his name is known, the person that infected him will step up and blow the lawsuit. And the other people he may have infected since then will step up and sue HIM.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
There might be some deception and lies by the one who got infected by HIV. He wants the huge amounts of money for his treatment of his HIV.
This “victim” is in ultimate denial! How can he prove conclusively he contracted the HIV virus from a blood transfusion in 2011? Maybe he’d like to BELIEVE he was infected by tainted blood, but he should take a closer look at those he’s been intimate with in the past few years. It’s much more likely he contracted HIV from his BEHAVIOR and sexual practices, rather than from highly screened and carefully analyzed Blood Bank blood.
Comments like this is why he chose to remain anonymous…maybe he did get it from somewhere else, but maybe not. There’s no way you can know that, though, so should reserve making such accusatory remarks.
20 million components transfused each year only 10 cases of HIV reported because of transfusions. I don’t need to reserve my remarks, the numbers do the talking
So you’re saying there’s a chance. Thanks for confirming, even though I wasn’t replying to anything you said.
Receiving blood is safer than driving, other life events. Not to worry.
What the numbers say is that getting HIV from a blood transfusion is a lot easier than winning PowerBall. Didn’t we have 3 or 4 winners in the big PowerBall recently?
What year are you talking about? I don’t believe there were any transmissions in 2015 from the blood supply. The testing is much better each year. Your number may be accurate from around 2008?
csdhawaii, I’m simply suggesting promiscuous behavior could have led to his HIV infection, just as he is suggesting the blood bank was to blame. There was nothing “accusatory” in my comment; it only offered my opinion, to which I’m entitled. It will be very difficult to prove in court that the blood bank was a fault because there is none of the suspected blood available to test. By bringing the lawsuit, I suspect (again, just my opinion) the hopes the Blood Bank will pay him off just to make him “go away” and avoid trial. And by the way, YOU have no idea “why he chose to remain anonymous”, yet speculate you know the reason.
That’s probably the plan between the man and his attorney is to get an out of court settlement. Most entities with deep pockets usually settle out of court than going through a lengthy and expensive court trial.
obviously it is not as safe as led to believe.
Perhaps he cheated on his wife and doesn’t want to admit it so he’s blaming the blood bank.
This is so laughable. Hard to tell who is the bigger babooze, the defendant or his loser attorney. Notice how zero, nada, no proof the defendant had been free of aids from a previous blood test prior to the surgery. Meaning he has been cheating on his wife, using hookers, and finally got caught big time.
Red Cross can prove the blood he was given was free of aids from their testing records. Hospital will also have to prove it did not contaminate the defendant during his medical work. There is a chance the hospital failed to ensure all their equipment was sterilized to standard.
Just another low life babooze who lets his “Little Head” do all his thinking. Deal with it. Take your meds, you will be just fine.
Loser attorney is none other than Michael Green.
Loser? He wins most of his cases. And you seem challenged, so I’ll help out here: Lawyers don’t create cases – they represent others who believe they have cases.
It would be interesting to know what kind of job the plaintiff has or had and whether that job required lots of travel to other destinations far away from home.
“There is approximately a 1 in 2 million chance of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion” – the chances of winning PowerBall is 1 in 292 million and yet 3 or 4 people won the gigantic PowerBall. Therefore – people CAN GET HIV from blood transfusions.
SERIOUSLY?? There is a chance after all? Isn’t it supposed to be 101% for these things? You won’t ever see me there again.
HAJAA1, if you didn’t know by now, and if you read the article, blood donors have not been afflicted with HIV. Your ignorant response will probably scare away more than a few people who were considering donating blood products. Nice job, winer. I’m an informed lifelong blood donor, so unintelligent remarks won’t scare me away from saving lives and doing community service by donating blood.
A while back I was fearful of donating blood but when my father needed some during a surgery, I realized how important it was. So I swallowed my fear and went for it. To find out that I have O type blood which can be used by everyone, especially babies. Became a regular donor ever since.
It might behoove the Blood Bank to hold a press conference and let the media see the many precautions, tests and checks/balances they employ for blood donors.
The question is why did this guy go get tested for AIDS? If he was faithful and only had his wife as a sex partner then there is no need for an AIDS test.