Arizona ruling revives lawsuits over research

PHOENIX - A court ruling issued Friday revives lawsuits filed by Havasupai Indians who allege that university researchers misused blood samples taken from members of the northern Arizona tribe whose isolated village lies deep in a gorge off the Grand Canyon.

Overturning a judge's 2007 ruling dismissing the cases, a split Arizona Court of Appeals panel said the Havasupai and other plaintiffs had provided enough information to proceed toward a trial.

The cases stem from research conducted with blood samples taken from more than 200 tribal members for diabetes research in the 1990s. That research, which had been requested by a tribal member, concluded that diabetes among Havasupai was not related to genetics.

However, Arizona State University and University of Arizona researchers also used the blood samples for research into schizophrenia, inbreeding and ancient population migration.

Tribal officials complained in 2003 after learning of the additional research. They filed pre-litigation claims and then lawsuits after they didn't get satisfaction when they met with university representatives.

The Havasupai claimed that the additional research was conducted without permission and that university officials and researchers invaded tribal members' privacy, betrayed the tribe's trust and misrepresented what researchers had done with blood samples and subsequent research results.

As a result, some tribal members now worry about violation of their religious beliefs and fear seeking medical attention, attorneys for Havasupai have argued.

Attorneys for the university system and individual researchers have argued that tribal members supplied the blood samples voluntarily and that there is legitimate public interest in data that can advance disease research.

They also have argued that the claims didn't provide enough information to allow the 2004 filing of lawsuits against the state and its sub-units under Arizona law.

Lawyers for the Havasupai argued that they provided as much information as they could. They said some damages remained unknown when the claims were filed because university officials had stonewalled requests for details of all that was done with the blood samples and subsequent research.

However, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge in 2007 ruled that the plaintiffs' claims fell short of what was required. The judge granted motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of the university system and researchers.

But the Court of Appeals panel said in Friday's 2-1 ruling that the claims either had enough information for the lawsuits to go to trial or at least enough to go forward in trial court pending further proceedings.

The purpose of the claim requirement is to put the state or its subdivision on notice so public officials can reasonably gauge the state's potential legal exposure and knowledgeably consider whether to accept or reject a settlement offer, the court's ruling said.

``The injury that naturally flows from the purported invasion of privacy invasions set for in the tribe's two notice-of-claim letters is necessarily subjective, deeply personal and may not be quantifiable except by a jury,'' Judge Diane Johnsen for the two-judge majority. Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer joined in Johnsen's opinion.

Judge Jon W. Thompson dissented, writing the pre-lawsuit claims didn't provide enough information on the damages sought.

``The notices do not say what worries, fears and distress were suffered by whom and to what degree these harms were suffered,'' he wrote.

The tribe asked for $50 million in its pre-litigation claim. The claim for individuals who filed the other separate lawsuit sought $10 million.