Snyder v. American Association of Blood Banks: a re-examination of liability for medical practice guideline promulgators

Medical practice guidelines are playing an increasingly important role in both the medical and the legal context. As tools for the health practitioner, it is thought that medical practice guidelines may contribute to an increase in the quality of patient care and cost‐effectiveness. In the legal setting, guidelines may improve the functioning of the medical malpractice system by creating more rational, predictable standards of care. The development and promulgation of medical practice guidelines, while increasing, are still evolving. A number of concerns, especially in the areas of physician autonomy, physician control, and ethics, as well as efficacy, need to be resolved. The use of such guidelines as the legal standard of care in malpractice cases evokes similar concerns, along with fears that the use of guidelines at trial may either lower the standard of care, or, conversely, raise the standard of care to levels that are difficult to meet. Adding to this controversy is the recent case of Snyder v. American Association of Blood Banks (1996), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a jury finding that the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) was liable to a plaintiff who contracted AIDS from an HIV‐tainted transfusion, for negligent failure to adopt guidelines requiring blood testing for surrogate markers. This opinion is significant as the first to find a duty of care running from a medical guideline promulgator to a third person, the injured patient. The opinion is examined in depth and within the context of other relevant case law. The impact the opinion will have is difficult to gauge. The somewhat unique facts of the case, as well as the court's unusually stinging critique of the defendant, AABB, and its motivations informing its response to the concerns about blood contamination, may limit its value as precedent. However, precedent does exist in analogous non‐medical cases for promulgator liability. The pros and cons of promulgator liability are weighed. While closer regulation of guideline development and promulgation or promulgator immunity may be warranted, it is premature to consider either seriously until the impact of the Snyder opinion can be appreciated.