 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Dallas County Hospital District12/13/1999
Justice Wright
This is an original mandamus proceeding instituted by Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Memorial Hospital (Parkland) against the trial judge for the 162nd Judicial District Court. Parkland seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to rescind his November 3, 1999 order directing a face-to-face videotaped deposition of donor P3098. Because I would conclude that the videotaping of the deposition, even under the trial court's confidentiality requirements, violates section 162.011 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, I respectfully dissent.
The underlying medical malpractice suit is against Parkland and Children's Medical Center for the negligent collection, distribution, and use of AIDS-contaminated blood resulting in a patient contracting AIDS after receiving the contaminated blood. Parkland determined that the contaminated blood came from donor P3098. The plaintiffs in the underlying suit filed a motion for discovery pursuant to section 162.011 of the health and safety code, seeking to depose donor P3098. In their motion, plaintiffs argued that the discovery sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the following matters relevant to the proceeding:
a. Whether Donor P3098 was a member of a group at high risk for contracting HIV;
b. If Donor P3098 was a member of a high-risk group, whether the person who screened Donor P3098 prior to drawing his/her blood provided any information regarding the association between high-risk activities and AIDS;
c. If information regarding the association between high-risk activities and AIDS was provided to Donor P3098 prior to donation, then whether such information adequately informed Donor P3098 that he/she might be at high risk for contracting HIV;
d. Whether the person who screened Donor P3098 prior to drawing his/her blood asked the "AIDS" questions on the donor information card;
e. Whether Donor P3098 was offered a confidential and effective opportunity to advise Parkland that his/her blood should not be transfused; and
f. Whether Donor P3098's physical condition was accurately stated on the donor information card.
Chapter 162 of the health and safety code is designed to protect the identity of blood donors. Buchanan v. Mayfield, 925 S.W.2d 135, 141 (Tex. App._Waco 1996, orig. proceeding). However, section 162.011 provides for the taking of discovery from an anonymous donor if the information:
(1) is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of a pending proceeding; and (2) cannot otherwise be obtained without threatening the disclosure of the name of a donor or other information that could result in the disclosure of a donor's identity, including an address, social security number, designated recipient, or replacement donation information. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ยง 162.011(a) (Vernon 1992).
In this case, I agree the information sought by the plaintiffs is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding because it is relevant to the issue of whether Parkland knew or should have known that the blood was contaminated with the AIDS virus. However, because I believe this information could be obtained without a face-to-face videotaped deposition, I cannot conclude the trial court's order meets the criteria set forth in section 162.011. I fail to see why it is necessary to utilize a form of deposition that is extremely likely to lead to the identification of the donor.
I
Page 1 2 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|