Wilson v. American Red Cross

• Decision Date: 17 April 1992
• Citation: 600 So.2d 216
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,156 Gerald WILSON, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS. 1901876.

Page 216

600 So.2d 216

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,156

Gerald WILSON, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS.

1901876.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 17, 1992.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1992.

Tom Dutton of Pittman, Hooks, Marsh, Dutton & Hollis, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.

W. Michael Atchison, Jeffrey E. Friedman and Mark W. Macoy of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellee.

STEAGALL, Justice.

Gerald Wilson underwent cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in February 1986 at the University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham. During the surgery and recovery period, Wilson received several units of blood that had been supplied by the American Red Cross (hereinafter "Red Cross"). After his surgery, Wilson tested positive for hepatitis B. Wilson, claiming that he had contracted hepatitis B from the blood he had received, sued the Red Cross, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence or wantonness in testing, screening, and packaging or in failing to test, screen, and package the blood units. Wilson also alleged liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") for supplying an unreasonably dangerous product.

On August 17, 1989, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Red Cross "to the extent that any claim[s] by the plaintiff against these defendants [are subject to] the Alabama Medical Liability Act [the claims] shall be and are hereby dismissed." The Red Cross then moved for a summary judgment on any remaining claims, and on July 30, 1991, the trial court entered another summary judgment in favor of the Red Cross. Wilson appeals from that second summary judgment.

Wilson first contends that the title of Ala.Code 1975, § 7-2-314, as adopted by the legislature, i.e., "Implied Warranty: Merchantability; usage of trade," limits the scope of that section and that the section does not apply to actions other than breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Section 7-2-314(4) provides:

"Procuring, furnishing, donating, processing, distributing, or using human whole blood, plasma, blood products, blood derivatives, and other human tissues such as corneas, bones or organs for the purpose of injecting, transfusing, or transplanting any of them in the human body is declared for all purposes to be the rendition of a service by every person participating therein and whether any remuneration is paid therefore is declared not to be a sale of such whole blood, plasma, blood products, blood derivatives, or other human tissues."

Under the rules of statutory construction, this Court is bound to interpret the unambiguous language of a statute to mean what it says. Coastal States Gas Transmission Co. v. Alabama Public Service Comm'n, 524 So.2d 357 (Ala.1988). When drafting § 7-2-314, our legislature specifically used the language "for all purposes." Applying our rules of statutory construction, this Court holds that the legislature intended § 7-2-314(4) to be applicable for all purposes, including negligence actions, breach of contract actions, and actions brought under the AEMLD.

Wilson next contends that the Red Cross is not within the term "health care provider" as that term is defined in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-542 (part of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987), and that, therefore, his negligence and wantonness claims are not subject to the provisions of § 6-5-542. The Red Cross contends that it qualifies as an "other health care provider" under § 6-5-542 and that the Act therefore applies to it.

Section 6-5-542 provides a cause of action against a health care provider based on a breach of the appropriate standard of care. The term "health care provider" is defined in § 6-5-542 as "[a] medical practitioner, dental practitioner, medical institution, physician, dentist, hospital, or other health care provider as those terms are defined in § 6-5-481." Section 6-5-481(8) defines "other Health Care Provider" as "[a]ny professional corporation or any person employed by physicians, dentists or hospitals who are directly involved in the delivery of health care services."

This Court has never addressed the issue of whether the collecting and supplying of blood is a health care service; however, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in Doe v. American Red Cross Blood Services, 297 S.C. 430, 377 S.E.2d 323, 326 (1989), stated:

"Having concluded that South Carolina recognizes a professional standard of care, we must next decide whether the collection and processing of blood for transfusion is a medical service.

"We...