May 27, 2011

State Supreme Court Ruling in a Wrongful-birth Case: Parents Cannot Recover Expenses for a Disabled Adult Child

The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued a ruling with mixed results for hospitals. The Court held that parents in a wrongful-birth case may not recover damages for the lifetime expenses of caring for the child into adulthood. IHA had submitted an amicus brief in support of this position. But, the Court has made it easier for parents to plead a case for damages from the emotional distress of a wrongful birth. See Clark v. The Children's Memorial Hospital.

Facts
The parents had already given birth to a child with Angelman Syndrome. Before conceiving a second child, the mother sought genetic counseling. The geneticist told the mother that the son's condition was not caused by a genetic abnormality. The mother sought a second opinion and again was told there was no genetic mutation to explain the Angelman Syndrome. Relying on this information, the parents conceived another son, who was later diagnosed with Angelman Syndrome.

As it turned out, the original test actually had shown that the first son's Angelman Syndrome was due to a genetic mutation - a fact that was overlooked in the counseling process.

The parents filed a lawsuit for wrongful birth and negligent infliction of emotional distress against several defendants. They sought damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for the second son both as a minor and as an adult. The appellate court held that (1) the parents could seek damages for the life time expenses of the child and (2) the parents had stated a claim for emotional distress.

No Post-Majority Expenses
The Supreme Court confirmed that Illinois law has never imposed a legal obligation on parents to support an adult child outside of two narrow exceptions for divorcing parents. Because the parents in this case were voluntarily taking on the child's expenses into his adulthood, the Court would not impose this burden on the defendants. According to the Court, a wrongdoer "is to be held liable for the harm that he causes, no more and no less." The actual wrong in this case, negligent genetic counseling, did not cause the parents to bear the burden of paying for their adult child's expenses. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate court's decision to allow post-majority care expenses.

Damages for Emotional Distress Allowed
Since 1983, Illinois courts have required plaintiffs to show they suffered emotional distress because they were in a "zone of danger" and had reason to fear physical injury from the defendant's negligent conduct. For example, a claim for emotional distress without physical injury was allowed when a young plaintiff witnessed an accidental injury to his brother while they were descending an escalator together.

In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its previous position on emotional distress in wrongful birth cases. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that they were the direct victims of the tort of wrongful birth, so they need not show a "zone of danger" to establish their damages for emotional distress.

Damages for emotional distress are allowed in other tort cases, such as defamation. But, for the first time in a wrongful birth case, the Supreme Court has drawn the distinction between the separate, free-standing claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and emotional distress as an element of damages. The Court cited the Florida Supreme Court and other states that have already allowed emotional distress damages in wrongful birth cases because a child's serious congenital deformity has a "profound effect (that) cannot be ignored." The Court held that the parents' emotional distress was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the injury, the wrongful birth. Therefore, the parents were allowed to amend their complaint to plead emotional distress as an element of damages, and not as a separate claim.