On appeal from a summary judgment, we must determine whether the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact and whether the trial court erred in applying the law. Our review is subject to the caveat that we must review the record in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant. When a party moving for a summary judgment makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. The UAGA outlines the means of effecting an anatomical gift, the persons who may make such a gift, and the circumstances under which the gift must be deemed invalid. There is the need for donations of eyes and other organs for transplantation and research purposes.
Time is usually of the essence in securing donated organs at the time of the donor's death.
The Act allows hospitals and physicians to ascertain with a high degree of certainty when someone is willing to donate organs, and to arrange for the prompt removal and preservation of donated organs. The Act also recognizes the religious and moral sensibilities of those who do not wish to donate organs. The Act does not compel organ donations nor does it establish a presumption that organs will be donated. This case turns on the interpretation of the good-faith immunity provisions of the UAGA as applied to the Eye Bank and Cau. The plaintiffs contend that whether the Eye Bank and Cau acted in good faith is a question of fact for a jury.