We don’t get blood defend statute instances fairly often, however right here is one involving a human tissue-based spinal bone graft. In Sherrill v. Spinalgraft Applied sciences, LLC, et al., 2024 WL 1979452 (W.D.N.C Could 3, 2024), the plaintiff had undergone spinal surgical procedure. That surgical procedure included using processed bone graft materials, which is “constituted of human tissue consisting of cancellous bone particles with preserved residing cells, mixed with demineralized cortical fiber.” The plaintiff alleged that the bone graft materials was contaminated with tuberculosis, inflicting her to contract that illness plus different accidents. Not too lengthy after the plaintiff’s surgical procedure, the Meals and Drug Affiliation issued a voluntary recall of the bone graft materials in response to reviews of sufferers testing constructive for tuberculosis and different post-surgical infections following surgical implantation of the bone materials.
The defendants filed a movement to dismiss the breach of guarantee claims. The problem was whether or not these claims had been barred by the North Carolina Blood and Tissue Protect Statute (the Statute), which shields “each taking part individual or establishment” concerned in “the procurement, processing, distribution or use of entire blood, plasma, blood merchandise, blood derivatives and different human tissues akin to corneas, bones or organs for the aim of injecting, transfusing or transplanting any of them into the human physique” from guarantee legal responsibility. A guaranty declare is the one type of strict legal responsibility in North Carolina, so software of the Statute can be a really huge win for the defendants.
They acquired that huge win. The plaintiff’s fundamental competition was that the Statute didn’t defend a “tissue-based product” just like the bone graft materials. The courtroom disagreed, discovering that the bone graft materials was processed human tissue (do not forget that the Statute explicitly reaches “processing”) and was coated by the Statute. Nor did it matter that preservatives had been used.
There was one other, maybe extra attention-grabbing, assist for dismissal of the guarantee claims. The bone graft’s use was “incidental” to the surgical procedure. Accordingly, “North Carolina regulation categorizes the procurement, processing, distribution, or use of human tissue for injection or transplanting as a service, precluding guarantee claims.”
The plaintiff endeavored to stave off dismissal by requesting discovery to determine “the true composition and make-up” of the bone graft materials. However the courtroom discovered the plaintiff’s argument “unpersuasive given the detailed understanding” of the bone graft materials discovered within the plaintiff’s papers.
We’re undecided whether or not that final bit signifies that the plaintiff erred by inserting an excessive amount of element in its argument, or whether or not there was no different means for the plaintiff to argue its means out of the Statute. Both means, the courtroom dismissed the guarantee claims.
