[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 13, 1987

Liability for Transfusion-Acquired Disease-Reply

Author Affiliations

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae Salt Lake City
University of Utah Medical Center Salt Lake City

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae Salt Lake City
University of Utah Medical Center Salt Lake City

JAMA. 1987;257(6):779-780. doi:10.1001/jama.1987.03390060069016
Abstract

In Reply.—  We are grateful to Drs Gettinger and Polesky and Ms Lentz for their additions and clarifications. Rhode Island, rather than New Hampshire, is the fifth state whose legislature has not yet made blood transfusion a service. Apologies to practitioners in Rhode Island and New Hampshire for the error.The Minnesota case seems to lend additional support to our fundamental point that blood is no longer treated as though it were a consumer product, where defects automatically give rise to legal liability. Note, however, that the Balkowitsch case was decided prior to the case of Cunningham v MacNeal Memorial Hospital1—the leading case that imposed liability in spite of the unavailability of screening tests for hepatitis—and that the analysis of Balkowitsch and cases cited in Balkowitsch was expressly rejected in Cunningham as "simply unrealistic."1 Furthermore, the decision in Balkowitsch has been interpreted by at least one court

×