United Blood Services v. Quintana
827 P. 2d 509, 1992 WL 55308 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A blood bank is held to a professional standard of care, but compliance with that professional standard is not conclusive proof of due care. A plaintiff may rebut the presumption of due care by presenting expert evidence that the entire industry's standard of care was unreasonably deficient in light of available knowledge and safeguards.
Facts:
- In early 1983, medical and scientific literature, including reports from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), began to suggest that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was transmissible through blood products and identified high-risk groups, including homosexual men.
- In response, the National Hemophilia Foundation recommended direct questioning of donors about risk factors, and source plasma centers began implementing such aggressive screening and surrogate testing.
- Conversely, a joint statement by the American Red Cross and other major blood banking organizations deemed direct questions about sexual preference 'inappropriate,' and whole-blood centers generally did not adopt these stricter measures.
- In April 1983, United Blood Services (UBS), a whole-blood center, collected blood from a volunteer donor using screening procedures that followed the less stringent industry recommendations and FDA guidelines, but did not include direct questioning about sexual activity or surrogate testing.
- On May 27, 1983, Susie Quintana received a transfusion of plasma processed by UBS from that specific donation during emergency surgery.
- Quintana was later diagnosed with AIDS, and it was determined that the blood donor from April 1983 had the AIDS virus.
- In a sworn statement, the donor confirmed that had he been asked direct questions about being in a high-risk group on the day of his donation, he would have answered 'yes'.
Procedural Posture:
- Susie and Chris Quintana sued United Blood Services (UBS) for negligence in a Colorado state trial court.
- The trial court granted UBS's motion to apply a professional standard of care and excluded the Quintanas' expert witnesses from testifying that the entire blood banking industry's standard was negligent.
- A jury, instructed that negligence meant failing to meet the industry standard, returned a verdict for UBS.
- The Quintanas (appellants) appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that an ordinary negligence standard, not a professional one, should apply, and remanded for a new trial.
- UBS (petitioner) was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a blood bank's compliance with the established professional standard of care for screening blood conclusively establish that it was not negligent, thereby precluding a plaintiff from introducing expert testimony that the entire industry's standard was unreasonably deficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Quinn
No. A blood bank's compliance with the professional standard of care is not conclusive proof of due care; it creates a rebuttable presumption that can be challenged with expert testimony showing the industry's standard was itself unreasonably deficient. The court reasoned that while a Colorado statute classifies blood banking as a 'medical service' subject to a professional standard of care, an entire profession cannot be permitted to set its own measure of legal liability if that standard falls below what is reasonably attainable. Citing Judge Learned Hand's opinion in The T.J. Hooper, the court stated that 'a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices.' Therefore, while adherence to the professional standard creates a presumption of due care, a plaintiff must be allowed to rebut that presumption. In this case, given the emerging scientific knowledge about AIDS transmission and the stricter precautions already adopted by source plasma centers, the Quintanas should have been permitted to introduce expert testimony arguing that the national blood banking community's standard of care was negligently deficient. The trial court's exclusion of this evidence was a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial limitation on the professional standard of care defense, preventing an entire industry from insulating itself from liability by collectively adhering to standards that are unreasonably low. The ruling empowers plaintiffs in professional negligence cases to challenge the adequacy of the profession's own customs and practices, not just whether a particular defendant complied with them. This precedent is especially significant in rapidly evolving fields like medicine and technology, where established standards may lag behind new scientific knowledge and available safeguards. The court effectively balances the deference owed to professional judgment with the judiciary's ultimate authority to determine what constitutes reasonable care under the law.
Unlock the full brief for United Blood Services v. Quintana