{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014388489208633094, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005995203836930456, 'mean_word_length': 4.719178082191781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Colorado blood bank prevails in transfusion case.


 The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that found no negligence by a blood bank for passing HIV-contaminated blood to a patient in 1993. The plaintiff claimed that the blood bank was negligent because it did not freeze blood until a second donor test could be performed. This test, promoted by an expert witness for the plaintiff, would be conducted after 6 months to detect recently acquired HIV infections. The defense argued that applying this strategy is impractical on a large scale because of the difficulty in getting donors to come back for another test. The state appeals court ruled last year that requiring a second test lacks "scientific validity," because applying the procedure nationally would cripple the blood bank industry.
