Including to the rising favorable precedent regarding state human tissue defend statutes is Heitman v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2024 WL 4019318 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2024).
The plaintiff alleged that he was contaminated with tuberculosis from an sadly contaminated human tissue allograft that was implanted in his backbone throughout surgical procedure. The plaintiff alleged that he has skilled severe unintended effects from that an infection. He and his spouse filed a grievance in opposition to the defendants. The grievance included causes of motion for strict merchandise legal responsibility and breach of the implied guarantee. Id. at *1.
The defendants moved for partial abstract judgment. The central authorized problem was whether or not Florida’s human tissue defend statute barred the strict legal responsibility and guarantee claims. The statute offers that:
the procurement, processing, testing, storage, or offering of human tissue and organs for human transplant . . . is the rendering of a service; and such service doesn’t represent the sale of products or merchandise to which implied warranties of merchantability or health for a specific function are relevant. No implied warranties exist as to defects which can’t be detected, eliminated, or prevented by cheap use of obtainable scientific procedures or strategies.
Fla. Statute § 672.316(6). Florida’s blood defend statute incorporates comparable language which has been interpreted by Florida’s Supreme Courtroom to bar each strict legal responsibility and breach of implied guarantee claims. Id. at *2.
Plaintiffs solely opposed dismissal of their implied guarantee claims arguing that the human tissue defend statute precludes guarantee claims just for defects that can not be scientifically detected which isn’t the case for tuberculosis. Id. at *2. No Florida court docket has but to interpret the human tissue defend statute, a lot much less deal with the slim problem of whether or not it bars implied guarantee claims for “detectable defects.” Subsequently, making use of the Erie doctrine, the court docket might make an “educated guess” on how the Florida Supreme Courtroom would rule, however couldn’t “create or modify” state regulation. Id. at *3. Subsequently, “with out one thing extra on this problem of first impression,” the court docket was not keen to place “its personal gloss on” the statute. Id.
Making use of the plain language of the statute, the court docket dismissed all strict legal responsibility, specific guarantee, and implied guarantee claims. The court docket additionally famous that it didn’t have authority to certify a query to the Florida Supreme Courtroom, however that maybe on attraction the Ninth Circuit would. Id. at n.5.
Keep tuned for extra favorable rulings on this case.