## Facts

- Susie Quintana received whole blood and fresh frozen plasma collected and processed by United Blood Services (UBS) during emergency surgery after a gunshot wound in May 1983.
- About a year later, she developed symptoms consistent with AIDS and was later diagnosed with infection.
- An investigation indicated that a donor for one unit of plasma was a member of a high-risk group for AIDS.
- The Quintanas sued UBS for negligence, alleging contaminated plasma and inadequate donor screening and blood-product testing despite additional safeguards that could have reduced the risk of transmission.
- Plaintiffs sought to present expert testimony that prevailing blood-bank screening and testing were inadequate and that additional steps were known and available.
- The trial court treated UBS’s conduct as governed by a professional standard under Colorado’s blood shield statute and ruled that compliance with professional/industry standards and regulatory norms conclusively established due care.
- The trial court excluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony challenging the adequacy of prevailing practices and instructed the jury that adherence to the professional standard established reasonable care; the jury found for UBS.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado’s blood shield statute requires application of a professional standard of care to a blood bank’s acquisition, preparation, and transfer of blood products.
2. Whether a blood bank’s compliance with professional/industry standards and governmental regulations is conclusive proof of due care or merely rebuttable evidence that may be challenged with expert testimony.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held that a professional standard of care applies to blood banks because the acquisition and preparation of blood for transfusion constitutes a medical service under the statute.
- The Court held that compliance with professional standards, industry customs, and governmental regulations is not conclusive proof of due care; it is rebuttable evidence.
- The Court ruled the trial court erred by treating compliance as dispositive and by excluding expert testimony aimed at showing the prevailing professional standard was unreasonably deficient given available and proven scientific safeguards.
- The Court affirmed the order for a new trial and remanded for proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- A blood bank’s acquisition, preparation, and transfer of human blood and blood components for transfusion is treated as a medical service governed by a professional negligence standard.
- The professional standard is measured by what a reasonably careful blood bank in the national blood-banking community would do under similar circumstances.
- Governmental regulations and industry customs are relevant evidence of reasonable care but do not establish due care as a matter of law.
- Plaintiffs may use expert testimony to show that prevailing professional standards lagged behind available and proven scientific safeguards and therefore fell below reasonable professional care.
- When specialized medical or scientific knowledge is required to assess the standard of care and its adequacy, expert testimony is generally necessary to allow the jury to evaluate breach.

## Conclusion

The court required application of a professional negligence standard to blood banks while rejecting an irrebuttable safe harbor based on regulatory or industry compliance, holding that juries may consider expert evidence that prevailing professional practices were unreasonably deficient in light of available and proven scientific safeguards.


United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1992)