A.B. Doe, a minor child by and through her parent(s) individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jerome Adams, M.D., in his capacity as the Indiana State Health Commissioner
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 114
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Doe, born in 2006, sued the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and current officials in their official capacities after ISDH retained her newborn dried blood spot (DBS) sample taken under Indiana’s newborn screening program.
- ISDH historically stored DBS samples (stated retention 23 years for pre-June 2013 samples); in June 2013 it adopted a consent-based policy: destroy after 6 months if no consent, or store up to 3 years for research with consent.
- Doe alleged ISDH retained and shared DBS samples without consent, asserted Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment and state-law claims, and sought class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, and fees.
- ISDH submitted affidavits, pamphlets, and website material showing (1) most stored DBS portions bear only an identification number, (2) only two unauthorized releases had occurred (none involving Doe), and (3) parents of pre-June 2013 births may request destruction via form.
- The trial court treated ISDH’s Rule 12(B)(6) motion as a summary-judgment motion, granted dismissal for lack of standing, and found Doe’s injury speculative; Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge storage of DBS | Doe: continued storage of DBS (containing DNA) without consent is an ongoing constitutional injury and causes imminent risk of misuse | ISDH: Doe has no injury in fact — samples bear only ID numbers, few releases occurred, pre-2013 samples not used for research, and Doe can request destruction | Court: Doe lacked standing — no sustained or imminent direct injury; fear of misuse speculative |
| Effect of uncertified class on relief | Doe: harms to millions justify relief and class treatment | ISDH: no class certified, so only Doe’s individual claims are before court | Court: Only Doe’s individual claims considered; class issues premature |
| Whether conversion to summary judgment was prejudicial | Doe: court converted without adequate notice and denied discovery | ISDH: evidence outside pleadings was filed earlier and conversion was apparent; Doe had time to respond | Court: Conversion appropriate and not prejudicial — Doe had opportunity and did not present contrary TR 56 materials |
| Preliminary/injunctive relief based on alleged releases to law enforcement | Doe: risk of disclosure to law enforcement and others warrants injunction | ISDH: administrative remedy exists (destruction request) and policy changes moot injunction; disclosures were rare or statutorily authorized | Court: Denied preliminary injunction; administrative remedy and speculative harm weighed against emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing can be satisfied by reasonable fear of harm when members show specific, concrete effects on interests)
- Smith v. State, 744 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2001) (once DNA profile is created from lawfully obtained samples, defendant has no possessory interest in the profile)
- Patterson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (lawful seizure of blood eliminates a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sample for subsequent uses)
- Bellows v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cnty. of Elkhart, 926 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Azhar v. Town of Fishers, 744 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (conversion of motion to dismiss to summary judgment requires opportunity to present Rule 56 materials)
- Alexander v. PSB Lending Corp., 800 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (pre-certification putative class action is treated as an individual action for standing analysis)
- Schulz v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (standing requires plaintiff to show sustained or imminent direct injury)