Requires the notification of patients if it is determined that a health care provider exposed patients to a communicable disease through reckless conduct

Summary of provisions

Section 1 of the bill adds section 240.67 to the penal law to create the crime of infecting a patient with a communicable disease by a health care provider through reckless conduct including but not limited to, the re-use of a syringe, needle or other sharp.

Section 2 of the bill amends subdivision 1 of section 206 in the public health law by adding paragraph (s) as it relates to notification of the patients of a health care provider if they have been determined to have exposed such patient or patients to a communicable disease through reckless conduct.

Section 3 of the bill amends section 6530 of the education law by adding subdivision 50 as it relates to the definition of professional misconduct by including exposing patients to a communicable disease due to reckless conduct such as re-use of a syringe, needle or other sharp.

Section 4 of the bill amends section 214-a of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 485 of the laws of 1986, by adding the action of infection of a patient with a communicable disease through reckless conduct of a health care provider by reusing syringe, needle or other sharp, as part of action of malpractice to be commenced within two years and six months.

Justification

This is a comprehensive reform package that: 1) provides stiff criminal and professional penalties for doctors who recklessly infect patients through the re-use of" sharps", 2) directs the Department of Health to notify patients who have been exposed by such conduct in a timely manner and 3) extends the statute of limitations for patients exposed to 30 months after the patient has been notified. This legislation has been proposed as a result of a scandal on Long Island where a doctor exposed hundreds of patients to infectious diseases including Hepatitis B, C and HIV.

Despite his reckless conduct the doctor was not charged with any major criminal charges nor was his professional license revoked. The patients who were exposed were not informed by the Department of Health for 3 years, preventing them from receiving medical care and potentially putting their spouses and family members at risk of infection. Furthermore, these patients are now barred from seeking civil remedies against this doctor because the statute of limitations starts running from the date of the malpractice, not the date of notification. This comprehensive package would address and rectify each of the above scenarios both deterring such conduct in the future and protecting patients should a similar scenario take place again.

Legislative history

2009-2010: S.1913/A.1622 - Died in Codes 2007-2008: S.6820/A.9608 - Reported and Committed to Codes

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act would take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after it shall become law.