Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Service
500 So. 2d 533, 56 A.L.R. 4th 739, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 33 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When balancing a plaintiff's discovery request for highly sensitive personal information, such as blood donor identities in an AIDS-related case, courts must weigh the constitutional right to privacy and significant public policy interests, like maintaining a robust voluntary blood supply, against the plaintiff's need for the information.
Facts:
- On May 24, 1982, Donald Rasmussen was struck by an automobile while sitting on a park bench, sustaining personal injuries.
- While hospitalized as a result of his injuries, Rasmussen received fifty-one units of blood via transfusion.
- In July of 1983, Rasmussen was diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
- One year later, Rasmussen died of AIDS.
- Rasmussen's estate sought to prove that the source of his AIDS was the necessary medical treatment, specifically the blood transfusions, he received due to the injuries from the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Rasmussen sued the driver and alleged owner of the automobile in a trial court for personal injuries.
- Rasmussen's estate served South Florida Blood Service, Inc. (who was not a party to the underlying personal injury litigation) with a subpoena duces tecum, requesting the names and addresses of the fifty-one blood donors.
- South Florida Blood Service, Inc. moved the trial court to either quash the subpoena or issue a protective order barring disclosure.
- The trial court denied South Florida Blood Service's motion and ordered the disclosure of the subpoenaed information.
- South Florida Blood Service sought certiorari review of the trial court's order from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Third District Court of Appeal, applying a balancing test, concluded that the requested material should not be discovered and reversed the trial court's order.
- The Third District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the privacy interests of volunteer blood donors and society's interest in maintaining a strong volunteer blood donation system outweigh a plaintiff's interest in discovering the names and addresses of blood donors in the hope that further discovery will provide some evidence that he contracted AIDS from transfusions?
Opinions:
Majority - Barkett, Justice
Yes, the privacy interests of volunteer blood donors and society's interest in maintaining a strong volunteer blood donation system outweigh a plaintiff's interest in discovering the names and addresses of the blood donors under these circumstances. The court affirmed the district court, holding that the interests involved are adequately protected under Florida's discovery rules (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1) and 1.280(c)), which grant trial courts broad discretion to limit discovery to protect individuals from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. The court acknowledged the constitutional right to privacy under both federal law (citing Griswold v. Connecticut, Whalen v. Roe, Nixon v. Administrator of General Services) and the Florida Constitution (Article I, Section 23), emphasizing the individual's interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. It found that disclosure of donor identities, particularly in the context of AIDS, constitutes 'disclosure in a damaging context' due to the severe social stigma, which could be 'extremely disruptive and even devastating' to the individual donors. Furthermore, the court recognized society's vital interest in maintaining a robust volunteer blood supply, which would be jeopardized if potential donors were deterred by the threat of privacy invasion and potential association with AIDS. The court concluded that the probative value of Rasmussen's requested discovery was 'dubious at best' and the potential for significant harm to the unsuspecting donors and public interest 'far outweighs the plaintiff's need.'
Concurring - Boyd, Justice
Justice Boyd concurred in the result only, indicating agreement with the outcome but not necessarily with the reasoning.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for balancing discovery rights against privacy interests and public policy in Florida, particularly concerning sensitive health information. It underscores that while broad discovery is generally favored, it is not absolute when it threatens fundamental privacy rights and crucial societal functions. The court's decision highlights the judiciary's role in protecting vulnerable individuals and public health initiatives from potentially invasive and stigmatizing information disclosure. Future cases involving requests for private medical information or data that could impact public welfare will likely apply this balancing framework, requiring a high showing of need to overcome substantial privacy and societal concerns.
