Advice on the investigation of issues in the case pertains to an interview with the client that explores all possible means for having contracted the AIDS virus and the date of the transfusion. The latter is required to determine the state-of-the-art for AIDS knowledge and tests for AIDS-infected blood at the time of the client's transfusion. The article discusses how the case should be approached in relation to the status of testing for AIDS-infected blood at the time of the transfusion. Two separate legal theories of liability are discussed: informed consent and transfusion malpractice. An informed consent case requires evidence that the client's surgery was deferrable without risk; the blood transfusion exposed the client to a risk of blood-borne diseases, including AIDS; the availability of the HTLV-III ELISHA test kits was imminent or projected for use in the foreseeable future; the deferring of surgery until after the test was available would have sharply reduced the risk of AIDS; and any reasonable person would have delayed the surgery until after the availability of the test. In proving transfusion malpractice, the circumstances warranting the transfusion and the propriety of the physician's order to administer blood must be scrutinized. Another issue involves a physician's failure to advise that directed or autologous donations (advance donations from patients for their own later use) may be arranged. 32 notes.