ALEXANDRIA, VA --- October 23, 2003 --- On Thursday, October 23, 2003, an 8-person jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia awarded $800,000 against the American National Red Cross in favor of a Fairfax County woman who sustained permanent injuries to her left arm and hand as a result of the Red Cross’ negligence while donating blood in August, 2000. The plaintiff, Robyn Fairshter, developed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), also known as  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), as a result of the negligence of the Red Cross phlebotomy.  RSD/CRPS is a permanent pain syndrome caused by a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which often causes debilitating pain.  Ms. Fairshter suffers from constant permanent pain, numbness and tingling in her left hand and forearm. Other symptoms include hand tremors, swelling, hypersensitivity to touch, and color and temperature changes in the affected hand/arm.  Ms. Fairshter testified that she suffers episodes of pain that approach 8-9 on a 10 point scale.  Procedures for relieving the pain include a stellate ganglion block, a procedure during which a needle is inserted in her neck while she is conscious, in order to deliver pain-relieving medicine to her spinal cord .   The relief is short-lived and lasts only for days. Ms. Fairshter also uses lidocane patches, a costly prescription that is only very temporarily effective for the pain.  Both prosecution and defense doctors testified that no cure exists for RSD. 

The Red Cross technician who drew Ms. Fairshter’s blood, was newly hired by the Red Cross in May of 2000 and released to perform the procedures unsupervised by the Red Cross on July 12, 2000.  During Ms. Fairshter’s procedure she deviated from the standard of care in numerous ways such as overinflating the blood pressure cuff and leaving it inflated until Ms. Fairshter’s arm turned bright blue, leaving the donor’s side during the donation, attempting to adjust the needle vigorously against accepted standards and stripping the tubbing to remove huge blood clots that had formed in the line while the needle was still in Ms. Fairshter’s arm.

The evidence showed that prior to hiring the technician the Red Cross received confirmation that the technician had provided incorrect information about the termination of her employment at a prior employer.  The technician said she voluntarily resigned.  The employment check, however, indicated that she was terminated for failure to follow company policies and that she was not eligible for rehire.   Nonetheless, they hired the technician without further inquiry.  

Prior to Ms. Fairshter’s donation the Red Cross technician had already received written notice from the Red Cross because she had violated their procedures while drawing blood from a donor, just days after her release from the Red Cross to perform phlebotomies.  In a progressive discipline notice, issued just 6 weeks before Ms. Fairshter's blood donation, her supervisor stated that the technician would be terminated if she was cited again.  What’s more, just five days before Ms. Fairshter attempted to donate blood another complaint was registered against the technician because she caused a grapefruit sized bruise to a donor. Even though the complaint had been registered, the Red Cross failed to inform the technician’s supervisor about this most recent violation.  Because of court rulings, the jury was not advised that even after Ms. Fairshter's injuries, which were made known to the Red Cross' regional medical director within 2 days, this technician was still drawing blood and that she injured several other donors.  In fact, The technician continued to work for the Red Cross until only recently. 

While the Red Cross admitted its technician was negligent, they tried to deflect their responsibility for her injuries by having their experts indicate that the timing of Ms. Fairshter’s injuries and her blood draw were merely “coincidental” and a result of ulnar nerve entrapment, even though Ms. Fairshter’s physicians had clearly ruled that possibility out and diagnosed her with RSD.  Ms. Fairshter’s attorneys, Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael E. Barnsback, of DiMuro, Ginsberg & Mook, P.C., in Alexandria, Virginia, have stated that they were extremely confident the jury would see past the Red Cross’ attempt to not take responsibility for Ms. Fairshter’s injuries.  Ms. Fairshter and her attorneys are hopeful that this case will prompt Red Cross to alter its programs to more safely provide their services to donators and to hold them accountable when negligence does occur. 

Ms. Fairshter, an attorney who is employed as an intake officer for the Disability Rights Section for the Department of Justice, and the mother of two young boys has had to dramatically change her life to adapt to the pain and inability to effectively use her left hand.  Specifically she needs help performing such routine tasks as giving her children baths or cooking meals for them.  Sadly, she cannot safely pick up her children with both hands for fear she may drop them.  She has never been able to bathe her youngest son and is unable to take her sons to the playground by herself. 

The Red Cross has been under scrutiny by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for many years for failing their inspections on many levels.  In 1993, the federal court in the District of Columbia placed the Red Cross under a Consent Decree which required the Red Cross to improve its many programs dealing with the collection and handling of blood products, to establish a quality assurance program to ensure that safe and proper procedures are followed, and for developing a better method for investigation and informing supervisors of any violation to its policies.

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a Consent Decree Notification to the Red Cross on April 14, 2003 advising the Red Cross of numerous deviations from FDA law, regulations and the 1993 Consent Decree.  The Department of Health and Human Services issued a shocking 45 page inspection report reporting violations for inspection periods April 22, 2002 through December 20, 2002 which reports that “there was a ‘culture to hide problems’ and ‘there is a pervasive attitude that the staff can clean problems up so they can never be found.”  The investigative report also refers to an employee fearing retaliation if she was seen reporting a problem to the supervisor. 

A 74 page Amended Consent Decree was later entered on April 15, 2003 dealing with the issues and requiring that the Red Cross be fined and penalized for future violations.

About DiMuro, Ginsberg & Mook
DiMuro, Ginsberg & Mook, P.C. is a specialized litigation firm located in Northern Virginia. The firm's practice focuses primarily on general and complex civil litigation in the areas of corporate & commercial law, business torts, criminal law, employment & labor law, and professional liability & ethics.