Lauren Ross v. American Red Cross
567 F. App'x 296
6th Cir.2014Background
- In Sept. 2008 Lauren Ross donated blood at an American Red Cross center; she alleges the phlebotomist hit a nerve, causing chronic pain (CRPS), and that follow‑up care was negligent. Ross signed donor materials and a consent form pre‑donation.
- Ross contacted the Red Cross after the incident and communications were recorded in a Donor Reaction/Injury Record (DRIR); the Red Cross produced an early version but later-updated DRIR entries were allegedly lost during a records transfer. Ross sued in Oct. 2009; the Red Cross removed to federal court under its federal charter removal statute.
- At a nine‑day jury trial the district court denied a Rule 50(a) motion on the initial negligence claim but granted it as to negligent aftercare; the jury found Ross failed to prove negligence and returned a verdict for the Red Cross.
- Ross appealed multiple pretrial, trial, and post‑trial rulings: denial of spoliation sanctions, exclusion/disqualification of her proffered expert (former Red Cross counsel), denial of pleadings amendments (pre‑ and post‑trial), several in limine evidentiary exclusions (Consent Decree, FDA ADLs, other suits), refusal to give res ipsa instruction, and JMOL on aftercare.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: no abuse of discretion on spoliation, expert disqualification, in limine rulings, refusal to give res ipsa, denial of leave to amend under Rule 16(b), JMOL on negligent aftercare (lack of requisite expert proof), and denial of post‑trial amendments/new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation sanctions for missing DRIR updates | Red Cross misplaced later DRIR entries after records transfer and should be sanctioned (adverse inference; amend to add punitive damages) | Loss was inadvertent before notice of litigation; produced earlier version; witnesses could testify to content | Denied — no abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed Beaven preservation/culpability requirement |
| Disqualification/exclusion of expert (Larry Moore) | Moore (former Red Cross deputy GC) could opine on Consent Decree violations, statutory violations, and phlebotomy risk | Moore had confidential relations and privileged knowledge; risks revealing privileged info; proposed legal conclusions and irrelevant topics | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in disqualifying and excluding his testimony |
| Pretrial/posttrial amendments to add strict liability/failure‑to‑warn claims | Ross sought to amend to assert that venipuncture is inherently dangerous and to add strict liability/failure‑to‑warn (pretrial and post‑trial under Rule 15/15(b)) | Amendments were untimely under scheduling order; no good cause under Rule 16; issues were not tried by implied consent | Denied — no good cause to modify schedule pretrial; no implied consent to try new theories post‑trial |
| Exclusion of Consent Decree, FDA ADLs, other lawsuits | Evidence was needed to show policy, foreseeability, and DRIR retention issues | Evidence was irrelevant to negligence in this specific incident and highly prejudicial/confusing | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion excluding as irrelevant/prejudicial |
| Failure to give res ipsa loquitur instruction | Injury speaks for itself; jury could infer negligence | Experts showed alternative non‑negligent causes; not exclusively under defendant's control; competing causes | Denied — res ipsa inapplicable; conflicting expert testimony made non‑negligent causes equally probable |
| JMOL on negligent aftercare claim | No expert needed; lay evidence showed inadequate follow‑up and causation | Complex causal link to CRPS requires expert proof of standard of care and causation; plaintiff presented no aftercare expert | Affirmed JMOL — plaintiff offered no expert proof tying aftercare to onset/exacerbation of CRPS |
| Cumulative error / new trial request | Combined rulings deprived Ross of a fair trial (spoliation, expert exclusion, in limine, res ipsa) | Individual rulings were correct; no reversible error or prejudice in the aggregate | Denied — no reversible errors; cumulative‑error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2012) (review standard and sanctions range for spoliation; court’s discretion and fault continuum)
- Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (test for adverse‑inference spoliation instruction: preservation duty, culpable state of mind, and relevance)
- Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (1992) (Red Cross’s federal charter authorizes removal to federal court)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) good‑cause requirement to modify scheduling orders for post‑deadline amendments)
- Jennings Buick, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 406 N.E.2d 1385 (Ohio 1980) (res ipsa loquitur inapplicable where two equally probable causes exist)