Home > Services > Appellate Cases

Recent Appellate Cases

Rape Conviction Over Turned - Fall 2007

Judge Overturns Rape Conviction
Disabled Woman Was 'an Exhibit'
By Ernesto Londono

SA reverses rape verdict
Defense had right to question mentally impaired woman
CARYN TAMBER
Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer
October 17, 2007

Previous Appellate Cases

Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Inc. 2005

The attorneys filed this case of first impression in Maryland on behalf of the wife of an employee infected with HIV contracted through his employment.

Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Inc., 388 Md. 407, 879 A.2d 1088 (2005)

The attorneys at Sandler & Mercer, P.C. filed a case on behalf of Jane Doe, the wife of a former employee of Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Inc. The employee worked as a lab technician growing and harvesting viruses including two strains of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The company had a policy of testing its employees for HIV-1 every six months. Pharmacia’s test for HIV-1 consisted of two parts, the Elisa test and the Western Blot. If the Elisa test was positive, then the Western Blot would be administered to confirm infection. As of 1989, Pharmacia knew that HIV-1 or HIV-2 (among other things) could cause a positive test result on the Elisa test. Pharmacia was also aware that the Western Blot could only confirm the presence of HIV-1. Thus, a person infected with HIV-2 could test positive on the Elisa test, but negative on the Western Blot. This pattern is referred to as a "false positive."

In 1989, John Doe tested positive on the Elisa test for the first time. He was then given the Western Blot test, and the result was negative. His subsequent tests were also negative. At no time did Pharmacia tell John or Jane Doe that a false positive could indicate HIV-2 infection.

In October 2000, John Doe was diagnosed as infected with HIV-2 and suffering from Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). John Doe informed Jane Doe that he was infected. Jane Doe was later diagnosed as infected with HIV-2. Jane Doe filed a negligence action against Pharmacia. The sole question before the Court of Appeals was whether Pharmacia owed Jane Doe a duty.

In this case of critical public importance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit asked Maryland’s highest Court to determine whether the employer owed a duty to John Doe’s wife and whether the injury to Ms. Doe was foreseeable.

The court ruled that employers do not have a duty to care for the spouses of their employees. The decision indicated that the court would not “find a tort duty solely on the basis of a foreseeability of an injury.” The ruling allowed an escape from liability if it could be shown that granting relief would “create an expansive new duty to an indeterminate class of people.”

Links of Interest

AIDS finds its way into courts
by Tom Ryan
The Sentinel
http://www.thesentinel.com/285603214276369.php

HIV-maker owes no duty to lab worker’s wife
By ANN W. PARKS
The Daily Records
August 12, 2005

Court of Appeals weighs lab’s duty to worker’s spouse
By ANN W. PARKS
The Daily Records
June 7, 2005

Wife of lab worker seeks right to sue over HIV
By ANN W. PARKS
The Daily Record
May 31, 2005

Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Inc., 388 Md. 407, 879 A.2d 1088 (2005)
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2005/13a04m.pdf