Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Doe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim against the Red Cross by a recipient of HIV-infected blood was not for malpractice and was not actionable under the Maryland Act
• holding that a claim against the Red Cross by a recipient of HIV-infected blood is not for malpractice but for the \failure to adopt proper testing and screening procedures\ and therefore is not actionable under the Maryland Malpractice Act
• determining that Red Cross was not a “health care provider” as defined by Maryland state law that provided an exhaustive definition of “health care provider”
• noting that strict liability could apply because the distribution of blood clotting factor concentrate “constituted a sale, rather than a service.”
• “considering the unique nature of blood as a lifesaving, life-sustaining substance without any apparent substitutes, we are of the view that when it is sold, whether commercially or otherwise,” strict liability in tort does not apply
• “[o]ur adoption of § 402A in Phipps ... implicitly adopted the substance of Comment k”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).