Supreme Court of New Jersey to AABB: ‘You’re guilty and that’s final.’ - American Association of Blood Banks
Categories: Blood BanksThe launch of the American Revolution in 1775 came with the shot heard ’round the world. British attempts to control colonial trade and to tax the colonists to pay for the costs of colonial administration and defense went against the traditions of local self-government. This eventually incited the colonies to rebellion. If the premise is true that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, then the recent shot taken by the New Jersey judicial system at the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) could provoke a revolution among standard-setting organizations nationwide.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld a lower court ruling that found the AABB negligent for failing to recommend surrogate testing (for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen). The AABB, therefore, was held responsible for 30% of the $1.35 million in damages awarded to William Snyder, who contracted AIDS from a transfusion during open-heart surgery in 1984 from blood supplied by the Bergen Community Blood Center, a nonprofit blood bank and member of the AABB. While there was no direct test available at the time to determine whether blood was infected with HIV, the court deemed other methods of making that determination were available.
Despite the AABB’s defense that it used all the best scientific knowledge available at the time to determine the quality of the blood used, and regardless of the fact that the AABB cannot enforce AABB members to follow all of its guidelines and standards, the AABB is being held responsible for some $460,000 in damages.
Seeking other remedies
After the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, the AABB filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied recently. “So we’re not going to get the case reheard,” said Eric R. Slayton, division director, strategic planning and communications for the Bethesda, Md.-based AABB. “This left us no legal remedies through the judiciary system in New Jersey, and it’s not the type of case that would be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court level,” he said.