AIDS Blood Donor Must Be Identified

SAN FRANCISCO — The state Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block a lower court order requiring medical officials to identify a blood donor in a lawsuit brought by a woman whose late husband was infected by AIDS after a transfusion.

The order, described by attorneys as the first of its kind in California, was issued in a negligence suit against the Irwin Memorial Blood Bank and the San Francisco Medical Society, claiming that the man was fatally infected with acquired immune deficiency syndrome from contaminated blood supplied by the bank in August, 1983.

The suit contends further that the woman also became infected with the AIDS virus through sexual contact with her husband, who died last month.

The attorneys for the woman, identified only as “Jane Doe” in the suit, sought and received an order in San Francisco Superior Court requiring the blood bank to identify an AIDS-infected donor who provided blood used in the transfusion so that he could be questioned about screening procedures in effect at the time.

The blood bank’s lawyers, backed by the American Assn. of Blood Banks, the National American Red Cross and the Council of Community Blood Centers, asked the state Court of Appeal to overturn the order. But the the appeals court refused.

The blood bank then asked the state high court to block the order, saying the case involved important, but unresolved, legal issues and could affect the privacy rights “not only of blood donors, but of every individual who has been or will be exposed to the AIDS virus.”

Lawyers for the blood bank argued in a court brief that identifying the donor would violate the physician-patient privilege of confidentiality, the state constitutional right to privacy of the donor and recently enacted state statutes strictly limiting the release of AIDS test results.

Lisa T. Ungerer, a San Francisco attorney representing the blood bank and the medical society, expressed dismay at the justices’ decision, which came in a brief order signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas.

“This would be the first time that a donor’s name would be revealed,” Ungerer said. “We’re quite worried that this will discourage people from donating blood. The whole system depends on people’s good will . . . and they’re going to be quite reluctant to donate blood if they think they may end up getting involved in a lawsuit.”

Ungerer said the blood bank would make another effort to get the high court to review the case, based on a new statements from the donor himself objecting to the order and a declaration from his physician saying the donor’s precarious physical condition could be harmed by involvement in the case.

Fred B. Rosenberg of San Francisco, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said he and his client had no intention of suing the donor and would seek to ensure that his name would not be further revealed.

“We don’t want to embarrass this person, who is quite sick with AIDS, or make it any more difficult for him,” Rosenberg said. “We’re very sensitive to his privacy. He won’t have to go before a jury or otherwise appear in public.

“But my client has rights also . . . and she herself is dying of AIDS,” Rosenberg said. “We feel the blood bank was negligent in screening blood--that it didn’t do all it should have back in 1983--and we need to question the donor about it.”

The high court’s action Tuesday, while leaving the order in effect, did not itself represent a definitive ruling on the merits of the confidentiality claims raised by the blood bank.

Attorneys noted that the issue could come back before the court, either in this case or in another. The question of confidentiality has been raised in other legal actions pending in state courts, the lawyers said.