It's not clear in the OP, but according to the complaint, the test that the plaintiff underwent was the finger prick method:<p>> <i>76. Theranos drew blood from R.C. using its “tiny drop” finger prick method. The process was painful and was not quick as advertised. The phlebotomist struggled to secure enough blood from R.C.’s finger and had to repeat the painful process several times before collecting enough to test.</i><p>IIRC, Theranos did regular type of draws, too, as the finger prick tests weren't performing particularly well. They touted their venous draws as being more efficient and cheaper than the standard tests, though:. From their homepage:<p>> <i>Our tests, including venous draws, require smaller samples than traditional labs. We also use much smaller needles. Ones designed specifically for collecting blood for children, taking the smallest sample possible. Theranos tests mean less blood, an easier process, and a clear difference in your experience.</i>
Everyone who has had one of their tests and a health issue will sue them. How can they survive? Is their war chest that big? I can't see them getting any more money.
Obviously people are looking to cash in. The lack of details on this one is expected. What could be the starting situation in which a man is on medication for something (unstated) and his blood lipids and blood sugar come back normal when they were in reality abnormal and, further, if that abnormality had showed up the doc would have changed the meds in such a way that the heart attack wold have been prevented one month later? One one month pre heart attack you are probably pretty occluded already. Are we to assume this guy had no angina a month prior? Are we to assume that he did not but seeing a high blood sugar would have led his physician to an investigation that would have led to a cardiac study?