Subject: Transfusion Recipient Can Sue Donor
Date: Published: 8/27/92 (56 lines)
Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

    Law -- Legal Beat:
    Transfusion Recipient Can Sue Donor
    Appeals Court Rules
    ----
    By George Anders
    Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

[152 lines irrelevant to AIDS omitted.  -- sysop]

    HIV-INFECTED BLOOD recipient can sue donor, appeals court rules.
    In an unusual case, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled
 that the blood recipient can sue the donor, even though the donor's
 identity was uncovered in violation of a lower-court order.  While
 the appeals upheld the lower-court order protecting the identity of
 the donor, it said the trial judge went too far in prohibiting the
 blood recipient from suing after learning the donor's identity.
    The case was brought by Cheryl Coleman, who contracted HIV, the
 virus that causes AIDS, in an August 1984 blood transfusion.  When
 the donor tried to give blood again in April 1985, an HIV test
 disclosed he was infected.  The American Red Cross, which had
 provided the blood, traced the donor's previous donations and
 notified Mrs. Coleman that she should be tested.
    Mrs. Coleman sued the American Red Cross charging negligence and
 sought to identify the donor.  The trial judge refused to allow the
 donor to be identified, but ordered the Red Cross to turn over the
 donor's records, with the name withheld.  One record, however,
 inadvertently included the donor's Social Security number, which
 Mrs. Coleman's attorney used to trace his identity.
    The American Red Cross urged the appeals court to not allow the
 suit against the donor, arguing that it would discourage future
 blood donors.  But the Sixth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
 the blood recipient's right to sue the donor outweighs the concerns
 raised by the Red Cross.  The donor's records showed he made
 misleading statements, the court said.
    "The evidence produced during discovery raises serious questions
 about his conduct as a blood donor," the appeals court said.
    A spokeswoman for the American Red Cross couldn't be reached to
 comment.
    Patrick Burkett, a Southfield, Mich., attorney for Mrs. Coleman
 on appeal, said the decision won't discourage blood donors because
 "we're talking about one person.  This isn't a fishing expedition."
 He added that the screening and blood testing now conducted by the
 American Red Cross "make this situation highly unlikely to occur
 again."
    (Coleman vs. American Red Cross, et al, Sixth U. S. Circuit Court
 of Appeals, Cincinnati, NO. 91-2085)
    ---
    Jonathan M. Moses and Wade Lambert contributed to this column.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
 personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
 hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
 from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]