PITTSBURGH – A Wyndham hotel alleges that it does not know how a hypodermic needle was found in one of its beds and struck an Ohio plaintiff, a needle the plaintiff claims potentially exposed her to HIV.
Dr. Elizabeth L. Bonds and Bryan Timpe of Columbus, Ohio first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 29 versus Wyndham Pittsburgh University Center of Pittsburgh and RLJ Lodging Trust, of Bethesda, Md.
“On Dec. 9, 2018, Dr. Bonds was an overnight guest at the Wyndham Pittsburgh University Center, staying in Room 229. When Bonds proceeded to get into the bed, she felt a pain in her left foot. Bonds removed her sock and discovered that the tip of a hypodermic needle was stuck in her foot. Bonds notified hotel management and an incident report was completed,” the suit stated.
“Immediately following the incident, Bonds went to the emergency room at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to seek treatment. The emergency room doctors noted that Bonds was at high risk of exposure to HIV or other blood-borne pathogens, given that the hypodermic needle was a hollow-bore needle. As a result, the doctors ran various lab tests and started Bonds on post-exposure prophylaxis medication. Bonds was discharged and ordered to follow up with her primary care physician within three to five days.”
When Bonds returned to Columbus, Ohio, Bonds followed up with her primary care physicians to continue treatment to prevent the transmission of HIV or any other blood-borne pathogens to which she may have been exposed. The prophylaxis consisted of a 28-day regimen, and Bonds had to wait several months before she knew that she had not contracted HIV or any other pathogens.
Bonds further consulted a psychologist for stress and anxiety related to the incident with the concealed hypodermic needle, the potential exposure to life-threatening diseases and the long wait before discovering whether she had contracted any of the life-threatening diseases. The total cost of these medical expenses was more than $15,000.
UPDATE
Eight months after the initial filing of the complaint, counsel for the defendants filed an answer along with new matter on Jan. 26.
“The allegations set forth…are so vague as to be unanswerable. Absent an allegation as to which employee has engaged in any particular act, defendants are unable to fairly respond to said allegations. The same are therefore deemed denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial,” the answer said, in part.
“The allegations set forth…contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a factual response may be deemed required, defendants are liable only in the event negligence is proved. Defendants are not strictly liable for every harm that may occur while a guest is present at the hotel.”
In new matter, the defense contended it didn’t know how the hypodermic needle found itself in the plaintiff’s bed.
“The object reported by the plaintiff as having been present in her bedding was a hypodermic needle, unattached to any syringe. The manner in which this object came to be present in the bedding in the plaintiff’s room is unknown,” the new matter stated.
“The object in question is so small, and so thin that it could have been present in the bedding in plaintiff’s room despite all due care. Reasonably diligent maintenance of the subject hotel room would not necessarily reveal the presence of this object.”
Apart from being pricked by the needle, the defense argued that the plaintiff was not otherwise harmed.
“Plaintiff Bonds did not, in fact, sustain any infection of any kind as a result of the incident giving rise to this action. Beyond the sensation of a momentary prick by a hypodermic needle in the region of her ankle, plaintiff Bonds did not sustain any physical pain and suffering as a result of this incident. Plaintiff Bonds was not, at any time following this incident, physically restricted in any way. She did not sustain any bodily injury which physically prevented her from engaging in any activity of daily living, nor in her occupation duties,” per the new matter.
“To the extent the plaintiffs are entitled to any award of medical special damages, which entitlement has been denied, said recovery must be limited to those amounts paid to and accepted by plaintiff’s health care providers in full satisfaction of their respective invoices. The gross amount of the plaintiff’s alleged medical bills is neither relevant to her claims for damages, nor recoverable in this action.”
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $35,000, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs and for all and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by J. Michael Baggett of McCann Garland Ridall & Burke, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Miles A. Kirshner of Margolis Edelstein, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-006198
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com