Blood Shield Statute

A law that protects health care providers from liability for transfusing blood products that subsequently prove to be from an individual infected with HBV, HIV-1, HCV or other pathogen
References in periodicals archive ?
To a lay person, the obvious way to draft a blood shield statute would be simply to declare that a supplier of transfused human blood shall be liable for harm caused by infected blood only if the supplier was at fault for failing to detect the infection.
201) The concern motivating both the original enactment and the continuation of the blood shield statutes is that certain types of blood infections--initially hepatitis and later HIV--might be present in blood but undetectable by existing technology.
Most of the blood shield statutes take the belt-and-suspenders approach, also typical of the legal mind, and add to the service-not-product declaration an express statement that liability for transfused blood is to be based only on willful or negligent conduct.
New York, and states with similarly-worded blood shield statutes would be subject to the disadvantageous tax consequences that flow from categorizing their sales and donations of blood as services.
29) a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that strict liability and warranty claims against Factor VIII manufacturers were barred by the state's blood shield statute, and the court went on to dismiss enterprise and market share liability, noting the legislative policy underlying Pennsylvania's blood shield statute precluded reliance on either of these theories.
17) State blood shield statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code recognize the provision of blood as a service, not a product.
Courts uniformly have held blood shield statutes constitutional.
Arkansas's 1971 blood shield statute exemplifies this understanding, finding as legislative fact that the "imposition of legal liability without fault upon the persons and organizations engaged in such scientific procedures inhibits the exercise of sound medical judgment and restricts the availability of important scientific knowledge, skills, and materials.
Part I also details the crippling effect of the blood shield statutes on product-defect litigation brought by hemophiliac plaintiffs infected with HIV and hepatitis from blood products.
Blood products were afforded virtual immunity from suit due to the widespread enactment of blood shield statutes by the states.
Instead, they enacted blood shield statutes en masse in response to section 402A.
These laws are called blood shield statutes, and they say that the delivery of blood is not a product but is a service.