It's been nearly six years since the first cluster of SARS cases appeared in Toronto hospitals and those most directly affected – hospital patients, nurses and their families – have waited almost that long for their day in court.
The Ontario government heads to court today in a legal battle with SARS victims, who argue the province placed concerns about tourism and the economy ahead of eradicating the deadly disease.
The province argues members of the public have no right to sue the government for failing to stop the spread of a communicable disease.
SARS killed 44 people, all in the Greater Toronto Area.
Lawyers for the attorney general are asking the Ontario Court of Appeal to throw out five lawsuits filed on behalf of dozens who were infected, including a group of 53 health care workers.
Among them is Emma Abarquez, who was a nurse at Scarborough Grace Hospital when its first SARS patient arrived March 7, 2003.
Abarquez soon came down with the mysterious and frightening illness named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and was isolated in hospital – at first for a week.
At the same time, her husband, Terry, 62, a retired Stelco worker, their three sons, a daughter and a nephew were quarantined at the family's North York home and required to wear face masks. "Even the mailman was scared of us," Terry recalls.
A few days after returning home, Emma had a relapse and returned to hospital, where she remained for a month.
Two other nurses, Tecla Lin and Nelia Laroza, died in a second wave of SARS that broke out in May 2003, after the province declared the provincial health emergency over.
In statements of claim, lawyers for groups of plaintiffs contend the government rushed to make that announcement and relaxed infection control procedures prematurely to counter the World Health Organization travel advisory issued on April 23, 2003, which warned tourists against visiting Toronto. Even before that, the province failed to ensure proper respiratory protection and equipment testing measures were in hospitals, lawyers for the nurses contend.
What's at issue before the court today is whether the nurses, former patients, and their families have the right to bring their claims to trial.
Much of the legal argument is expected to focus on how their cases might be affected by a 2006 ruling from the appeals court involving the government's alleged failure to implement proper mosquito control measures and stop the spread of West Nile virus.
In that case, the court put a stop to claims brought by 40 people infected by West Nile, including George Eliopoulos, who was bitten by a mosquito in 2002 and died the next year of complications from a fall.
The court said the possibility of contracting the virus was an "undifferentiated" risk faced by all members of the public and not a risk that was created by the government.
Justice Robert Sharpe, who wrote the West Nile decision, will be presiding over the appeals panel considering the SARS cases.
Lawyers for the SARS plaintiffs, however, argue there are important differences between the two cases.
While West Nile was spread by mosquitos and all members of the public faced about the same risk, SARS was confined largely to hospitals and the province would have known patients would get the disease if proper infection control wasn't followed, they contend.
No comments:
Post a Comment