C.R.S. v. United States

The Military Blood Program Office (MBPO) was given broad discretion to adopt screening protocols for blood donors. In 1983, in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis, MBPO adopted the HIV screening protocols issued by the Federal Drug Administration and the American Association of Blood Banks (the FDA/AABB screening protocols). The FDA/AABB screening protocols largely relied on donors voluntarily disclosing HIV risk factors. Shortly after the FDA/AABB screening procedures were adopted, D.B.S., a national guardsman, received a blood transfusion at a military hospital. In 1986, the army surgeon general (ASG) issued guidelines stating that military servicemembers who received blood transfusions between January 1980 and July 1985 were classified as high risk for HIV infection and directed the military to identify and notify high-risk servicemembers. The ASG guidelines did not contain any specific details regarding how the military should handle notifying high-risk servicemembers. In 1989, D.B.S., along with his wife, N.A.S., and his child, C.R.S. (plaintiffs), all tested positive for HIV. It was subsequently discovered that D.B.S. received HIV-contaminated blood during his 1983 blood transfusion. D.B.S. sued the United States (the government) (defendant) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the government was negligent because (1) adopting the civilian FDA/AABB screening protocols was inappropriate in the military context and (2) the government had failed to comply with the ASG’s guidelines mandating that the military notify D.B.S. that he was at high risk for HIV injection. The government countered, arguing that it was immune from D.B.S.’s suit under the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception because the military’s conduct had been discretionary rather than strictly proscribed by statute. The district court agreed and granted the government summary judgment. D.B.S. appealed.