Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • "slightly above average" is medical jargon for "inconclusive" or "within test tolerance of not ill". In your example, could A or B have contracted the STI in the time between test and retest?
    – Trish
    Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 14:45
  • No, that is ruled out. Otherwise, there is clearly no case. Does "inconclusive" not warrant a second test from a medical perspective? Is this litigable?
    – quantum
    Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 15:21
  • That is highly dependent on the amount that "slightly" is, and what marker it is.
    – Trish
    Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 15:27
  • 1
    "B got tested again and had the STI that A had (making B the source) at the same clinic." One factor to consider is each clinic's history and/or rate of false negatives. If A's clinic has the higher rate, it would complicate conjecturing who is the actual source and consequently the clinic at fault. Similarly if A's clinic has the policy of labeling a reading of "slightly above the average" as negative.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 15:32
  • 2
    Your example does not show any clear causality. B's results were negative/inconclusive. A's results could have been a false negative (tests are not 100% reliable). The tests could have been performed during a period after infection during which the disease was not yet detectable. A or B could have contracted the infection outside of their relationship. You have no evidence that the clinic did something wrong, and even less basis for claiming that the clinic was responsible for later injuries.
    – amon
    Commented Feb 6, 2022 at 15:36