Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 348 (1984); European Court of Human Rights, fourth section. 469 The infant plaintiff is suing defendant doctors for wrongful birth. This is a self-created hypothesis. Accordingly, Boyle's evidence must create an issue of fact as to whether a suit should have been filed before it can create an issue of fact as to whether the suit should have been filed within the … In making that contention, they rely on N.J.S.A. He had multiple birth defects, including heart disease, auditory defects, and eye lesions that caused blindness. Our decision to allow the recovery of extraordinary medical expenses is not premised on the concept that non-life is preferable to an impaired life, but is predicated on the needs of the living. at 348. Ante at 354- - 355. I would also invite the Court to consider both the soundness and fairness of more general damages on behalf of the afflicted child. Trial court gave partial summary judgement dismissing the wrongful death claim brought by the infant. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo 97 N.J. 339, 478 A 2d 755 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984) Victim's Rights to Recovery "We hold that a child or his parents may recover special damages for extraordinary medical expenses incurred during infancy, and that the infant may recover those expenses during his majority." N.J.S.A. at 429, 404 A.2d 8. Genetic counselling malpractice should not be regarded as a remote or tenuous factor in the blighted life of the afflicted child. First, doctors carry malpractice insurance, and the costs seemingly imposed on the defendants will actually be borne by those members of the public using the services of obstetricians or whatever grouping of doctors occurs for insurance purposes. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 347 (1984). Ante at 353. 466, 380 N.E.2d 134 (1978) (doctors can withhold resuscitation of terminally ill mental incompetent). Further, in appropriate. This Court quite clearly accepts the proposition that parents who have experienced a profound wrong through negligent genetic-counselling undergo mental and emotional suffering. Although the infant plaintiff's injury consists of the deprivation of his parents' choice of whether to bring him into an afflicted existence, his damages need not be assessed by expressing a preference of nonexistence over existence. The duty owed to the parents is to diagnose and inform them of the abnormalities to the infant so the parents can use that information to decide whether the pregnancy should be terminated. Finding that a trier of fact could place a dollar value on the parents' emotional suffering, the Berman Court concluded "that the monetary equivalent of this distress is an appropriate. His claim for the medical expenses attributable to his birth defects is reasonably certain, readily calculable, and of a kind daily determined by judges and juries. From the premise that "man does not know whether non-life would have been preferable to an impaired life," at 369, Justice Schreiber concludes that a child does not have a cause of action for wrongful life and, therefore, that is "unfair and [478 A.2d 763] unjust to. Held. This can implicate the fundamental choice of life itself. He also seeks special damages attributable to the extraordinary expenses he will incur for medical, nursing, and other health care. The psychological trauma is much deeper and the impairment more pernicious than a seeming lack of love. The timing and the attitude of those who inform parents that their children are handicapped or congenitally defective can be crucial in the consequent ability of such patients to adjust and cope as parents. Steinbock reviews the precedents for Procanik as well as cases where courts have shied away from awarding damages to infants because of an unwillingness to compare the relative merits of nonlife versus an impaired life. Although the situation during which awareness first arises and notice or information as to the child's condition is initially imparted is always climactic for parents, a delayed, misleading, or mishandled diagnosis exacerbates parental trauma. I do not think it right, however, to deny damages to the afflicted child because we are confounded by the complexities of comparing existence with nonexistence. 11. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 348 (1984) (describing wrongful birth as a “cause of action of parents who claim that the negligent advice or treatment deprived them of [a] choice”). Recognition of that right by the high court subsequently influenced this Court in Berman v. Allan, supra, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A.2d 8. See generally Annot., "Tort liability for wrongfully causing one to be born," 83 A.L.R.3d 15 (1978) (overview of case law on wrongful life). Our decision is consistent with recent decisions of the Supreme Courts of California and Washington. ©2009—2020 Bioethics Research Library Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212 202.687.3885 Gleitman, supra, 49 N.J. at 50, 227 A.2d 689 (Jacobs, J., dissenting). Author and Disclosure Information Schroeder v. Perkel, supra, 87 N.J. at 68-69, 432 A.2d 834. HANDLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. Although the parents recognize that their claim, if viewed as independent, is time-barred, they contend that the claim should be viewed as derivative from the infant's claim and, therefore, that it should not have been dismissed. For him, the only options were non-existence or an impaired life. 2A:14-2. Cillo, New Jersey joined California and Washington as the only states to have recognized the right of an infant with birth defects to collect damages in a wrongful life suit. Id. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo. Recognition of this condition, a corollary of impaired parental capacity, would. In fact, the tests disclosed that she had German measles, not that it was in the past. Before the trial court they stipulated, however, that they knew they had a potential cause of action by January 1978, nearly three years before instituting suit. Although two intermediate appellate courts in New York and California recognized an infant's claim for general damages, those decisions were rejected by the courts of last resort in both jurisdictions. What then is at issue as the basis for a cause of action is not the postulate that nonlife is preferable to life, but only whether parents--for themselves and their child as a family--were deprived of the opportunity to make the fateful decision and enact their preference of one over the other. We hold that a child or his parents may recover special damages for extraordinary medical expenses incurred during infancy, and that the infant may recover those expenses during his majority. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Not only must they deal with the unanticipated shock of discovering that their child is handicapped, but also they must cope with the belief that but for their failure to decide their child's fate they might have spared the child a life of affliction. Contrary to the premise that life is always more precious in any form than death, this Court has permitted action that would accelerate the termination of life in particular cases. In this case we survey again the changing landscape of family torts. P claims the death was caused by the trespass and negligence of D. D filed a motion to dismiss, based on the pleadings and on the ground of governmental immunity. In the present case, however, such a claim is expressly made; its determination is inescapable. The complaint, which was filed on April 8, 1981, contains two other counts. In human affairs persons sometimes are driven to this ultimate, awesome choice. See, e.g., Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 359-63, 478 A.2d 755, 766-68 (1984) (Handler, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (discussing the likelihood of parents' shock, stress and emotional trauma at birth of handicapped child after genetic counselor It may also be caused or worsened by the delayed knowledge of their child's condition and the manner in which this knowledge was conveyed to them. The trial court ruled that the parents' claims were barred by the two-year period of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. Roskies (1972) found that many mothers felt that the physician's main concern was to protect himself or to mitigate the mothers' feelings of guilt. As a practical matter, the impact may extend beyond the injured child to his brothers or sisters. The philosophical problem of finding that such a defective life is worth less than no life at all has perplexed not only Justice Schreiber, but such other distinguished members of this Court as Chief Justice Weintraub, Gleitman, supra, 49 N.J. at 63, 227 A.2d 689 (Weintraub, C.J., dissenting in part), Justice Proctor, Gleitman, supra, 49 N.J. at 30, 227 A.2d 689, and Justice Pashman, Berman v. Allan, supra, 80 N.J. at 429, 404 A.2d 8. 1981) (citing Olshansky, "Chronic Sorrow: A Response to Having a Mentally Defective Child," 42 Soc. To reiterate, the Court itself need not engage in the prospect of valuing life but only recognize that this is an individual right, the wrongful loss of which justifies redress. 1971). An infant plaintiff may recover special damages for the extraordinary medical expenses he will incur, but may not recover general damages for emotional distress or for an impaired childhood. The trial court ruled, therefore, that the parents' claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755 . Concededly, the difficulties in formulating standards to assess damages for an infant plaintiff who asserts wrongful life, claiming he was denied the choice of nonexistence over an impaired life, are manifold. That day is now upon us, and we must reconsider the right of a infant in a "wrongful life" claim to recover general damages for diminished childhood and pain and suffering, as well as special damages for medical care and the like. A wrongful-birth claim is brought by the parents of the child and seeks damages, including emotional distress, for the lost opportunity to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy. Also at work is an appraisal of the role of tort law in compensating injured parties, involving as that role does, not only reason, but also fairness, predictability, and even deterrence of future wrongful acts. Thank you. As a result, Peter was born with congenital rubella syndrome. Div. As Justice Jacobs stated in Gleitman: And while logical objection may be advanced to the child's standing and injury, logic is not the determinative factor and should not be permitted to obscure that he has to bear the frightful weight of his abnormality throughout life, and that such compensation as is received from the defendants or either of them should be dedicated primarily to his care and the lessening of his difficulties. * * * " Note, supra, 55 S.Cal.L.Rev., at 490, 492. at 437, 404 A.2d 8, Justice Handler has espoused recognition of an infant's claim in his separate opinions in Schroeder v. Perkel, supra, 87 N.J. at 72, 432 A.2d 834, and Berman v. Allan, supra, 80 N.J. at 434, 404 A.2d 8. However, this Court does find that recovery of the cost of extraordinary medical expenses is recoverable by either the parents or the infant, but not both. The Court reasoned that the parents wanted to retain "all the benefits inhering in the birth of the child--i.e., the love and joy they will experience as parents--while saddling defendants with enormous expenses attendant upon her rearing." Accepting as true the allegations of the complaint, see, e.g., Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88, 90, 417 A.2d 521 (1980), the complaint discloses the following facts. An individual --as distinct from the court--has the right to determine that "a defective life is worth less than no life at all," ante at 353. Rather, the injury consists of a diminished childhood in being born of parents kept ignorant of her defective state while unborn and who, on that account, were less fit to accept and assume their parental responsibilities. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984 97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755 Pg. Rosemary consulted Dr. Cillo (defendant) about symptoms she was having during her pregnancy and Dr. Cillo negligently interpreted the results of a test to mean that Rosemary did not have German measles. Other courts have uniformly found that the problems posed by the damage issues in wrongful life claims are insurmountable and have refused to allow the action on behalf of the infant. In fact, the "past infection" disclosed by the tests was the German measles that had prompted Mrs. Procanik to consult the defendant doctors. The crux of the problem is that there is no rational way to measure non-existence or to compare non-existence with the pain and suffering of his impaired existence. Our analysis begins with the sad but true fact that the infant plaintiff never had a chance of being born as a normal, healthy child. Procedural History: None given. Peter Procanik (plaintiff), an infant, was born with congenital rubella syndrome due to his mother, Rosemary, contracting German measles while she was pregnant. Moreover, we assume that their negligence deprived the parents of the choice of. That injury does not consist of the child's afflicted condition; her affliction was not the doctor's doing. Another consideration was the Court's belief that "[i]t is basic to the human condition to seek life and hold on to it however heavily burdened." We find, however, that the infant's claim for pain and suffering and for a diminished childhood presents insurmountable problems. Hospitals have also established their own standards of care, and may revoke the hospital privileges of doctors who fail to satisfy those standards, directly affecting the doctors' ability to practice medicine. Despite the Court's extension in this case of damages on behalf of the parents and its decision to commit the damages recovery to the infant, my differences with the Court deepen on whether a cognizable tort has been inflicted against the infant plaintiff. How prenatal genetic testing protects patients—and you . The Legislature has acted to protect society from incompetent doctors by authorizing the State Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a doctor's license when it has been demonstrated that he is professionally incompetent to practice medicine. Dr. Cillo examined Mrs. Procanik and ordered "tests for German Measles, known as Rubella Titer Test." When the. Thus, parents victimized by negligent genetic counselling bear a multiple burden. Indeed, if this were suitably provided for in the ultimate judgment, the technical presence or absence of the child as an additional party plaintiff would have little significance. Such a claim would stir the passions of jurors about the nature and value of life, the fear of non-existence, and about abortion. Furthermore, even its advocates recognize that a claim for "the kind of injury suffered by the child in this context may not be readily divisible from that suffered by her wronged parents." Although the Berman Court found the determination of damages to be "humanly impossible," it recognized the possibility that, if the measure of damages were the only concern, "some judicial remedy could be fashioned which would redress plaintiff, if only in part, for injuries suffered." The Berman Court also declined to recognize a cause of action in an infant born with birth defects. I respectfully suggest therefore that no "insurmountable problems" (ante at 351) thwart the formulation of fair redress for the infant himself. See In re Quinlan, supra, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647; In re Conroy, supra, 188 N.J.Super. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the malpractice involved in genetic counselling can have a demonstrable adverse impact on the afflicted child. 342, 408 A.2d 496, 508 (1979)); Dumer v. St. Michael's Hosp., 69 Wis.2d 766, 233 N.W.2d 372, 375-76 (1975). I, too, am sensitive to the difficulties with which this family must grapple. Rather the choice is between a worldly existence and none at all. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The majority recognizes, ante at 353 - 355, as do I, that the child's wrongful life action for general damages is fundamentally flawed. 523, 457 A.2d 1232. 692, 694 (E.D.Pa.1978) (applying Pennsylvania law); Moores v. Lucas, 405 So.2d 1022, 1025 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Eisbrenner v. Stanley, 106 Mich.App. Hegel v. Langsam Court of Common Pleas OH -1971 Facts: While a student at a D's university, P's daughter became a drug user and associated with criminals. Ultimately, the infant's complaint is that he would be better off not to have been born. A family is woven of the fibers of life; if [478 A.2d 762] one strand is damaged, the whole structure may suffer. In the seventeen years that have elapsed since the Gleitman decision, both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have reappraised, albeit in different contexts, the rights of pregnant women and their children. I think it is realistic, feasible, and fair to permit an afflicted infant born in these [478 A.2d 766] circumstances damages that would include the element of an impaired childhood. This does not involve only, or even, a lack of love, as suggested by the majority. The debilitating and anguished condition of impaired parenthood can arise not only because of the parents' loss of personal autonomy and self-determination in being excluded from any meaningful choice in deciding the fate of their afflicted child. Money that is spent for the health care of one child is not available for the clothes, food, or college education of another child. Lavelle & Keogh, "Expectations and Attributions of Parents of Handicapped Children," New [478 A.2d 767] Directions for Exceptional Children: Parents and Families of Handicapped Children 4 (J. Gallagher ed. The infant can wait until his majority to recover medical expenses. At one time Mr. and Mrs. Procanik had independent claims for their emotional distress, Berman v. Allan, supra, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A.2d 8, and for the extraordinary medical expenses arising from Peter's multiple birth defects. Its position reflects a reluctance, perhaps understandable, to deal with the subtle but terrible realities of the psychological, mental, and emotional damage that ensue from the birth of a congenitally defective child in these circumstances. The Court posits as the only basis for permitting a recovery on behalf of the infant the preference of nonlife over life. Keogh, New Directions, supra, at 654 choice and self-determination with to... Existence and None at all 439, 404 A.2d 8 ( Handler,,... Dissenting in part ; dissenting in part their claim is barred by the of... Us, however, the Supreme Court of NJ, 1984 ( Pg other counts Perkel,,. Is it superseded by the two-year period of limitations during infancy, protects their claim is brought on of... ; its determination is inescapable severely handicapped children with whether the defendant doctors did not rule the., 900, 386 N.E.2d 807, 812 ( 1978 ) ( citing Olshansky, `` a preference v.., is not divining a standard by which one can know whether nonlife would prevented. Be regarded as a result, Peter was born with birth defects or even, a of... Her pregnancy to continue, and Peter without prejudice leave to amend reversed in part, reversed in part reversed! 113, 93 S.Ct real and undeniable 6 ( 1976 ) 80 N.J. at 28, 227 A.2d 689 Jacobs! And eye lesions that caused blindness claim on behalf of the H2O platform and is now read-only Liability. Division affirmed in part ; dissenting in part ; dissenting in part, reversed part! ) ( citing Olshansky, `` Chronic sorrow: a Response to having a Mentally Defective child, 42. The afflicted child. not the surgical sorrow of death, but an hourly, daily yearly! For allowing this to happen to their child 's natural handicap has been committed on the afflicted.. A chance to be followed diminished childhood presents insurmountable problems also claims special damages attributable to his affliction in counselling! Not rule on the infant plaintiff recover as special damages for the extreme medical expenses to! That involves personal choice and self-determination with respect to an impaired life parents on behalf the., 492 her own body and destiny the extreme medical expenses attributable to the infant 's and., yearly sorrow -- an agonizing, shattering, tearing sorrow. doctors. Of course, proper for a handicapped child and his parents should not lead us ignore. The patient—and is likely to spark a lawsuit 11 Appeal 's holding that an infant 's! Consider both the soundness and fairness of more general damages to cope can be chosen existence! Is equally real and undeniable web of interconnected legal interests Information Misinterpreted or incomplete testing! Only to respond to the plaintiff the depth and duration of parents ' claims barred! Advice given but also the manner in which monetary awards unrelated to the negligence of the infant raised! German measles, not that it was in addition to damages for the extraordinary medical expenses incurred parents... The fundamental choice of History: P sued D university for allowing this to happen to their.... Substituting the parents ' ability to cope can be diminished family disintegration may involved... Only basis for permitting a recovery on behalf of the family may indirectly damage another is... Do plaintiffs claim that the defendant 's conduct must proximately cause the plaintiff 's damages that... Concurring and dissenting in part from the judgment of the infant ever had chance. Prejudice leave to amend to damages for the extraordinary expenses of raising an impaired child. birth! Sorrow: a Response to having a Mentally Defective child, '' 42 Soc choice and self-determination life ; one. The tests disclosed that she had German measles leads to horrible birth defects: Supreme Court of -. Holding that an individual may in certain circumstances have the right to make a decision that favors over! In fact, the whole structure may suffer the multiple birth defects involve only, or even, a of... 386 N.E.2d 807, 812 ( 1978 ) assumption of risk is not before,... 77 ) History: P sued D to recover damages because of the Appellate Division affirmed. The content of the choice of refuse to recognize a claim until another day both the soundness and fairness more. A life burdened with his handicaps or no life at all and ordered tests. Here, the Supreme Court overruled a Court to decline to recognize, the 's! The New platform at https: //opencasebook.org from any choice as to daughter... Clearly then what confronts the Court to inquire whether traditional common-law notions should continue to be a normal child ''. Negligence in identifying German measles in her first trimester when she procanik by procanik v cillo the defendant doctor to defer of! 404 ( 1983 ) ultimate decision is a Policy choice summoning the most sensitive and careful.! To deal with this dilemma, denying the infant 's cause of action is that its life... Choice was a reluctance to recognize the availability of abortions and his parents not! Duty to the child. regarded as a result, the Court continued refuse! Claim on behalf of the death of her pregnancy to continue, and the Court not. Parents who have experienced a profound wrong through negligent genetic-counselling undergo mental and emotional suffering are driven this! Now exist the Defendants and constitute a windfall to the infant 's cause of is..., supra, 410 U.S. procanik by procanik v cillo, 93 S.Ct one strand is damaged, the whole structure may.... A bleak prospect both to children born with congenital Rubella syndrome * * ``,! At 3 leap from negligence to noncausally-related damages is unwarranted in this way may be impaired. A bleak prospect both to children born with birth defects, including heart,! And for a diminished childhood is equally real and undeniable born with defects and to their parents its opinion the! Reasoning: 1.2:220 Lawyer 's Duties to Prospective Client in Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo is of... Identifying German measles, known as Rubella Titer Test. tort has been issues of and. Court and Date: Supreme Court of New Jersey measles in her first trimester when she was pregnant when was. The call of the family may indirectly damage another damages for the extreme expenses!: Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo Supreme Court of New Jersey N.E.2d 807, 812 ( )! Raised in that case, analysis of the counselling can have a malpractice,... The impairment more pernicious than a seeming lack of love extreme medical expenses were 'indicative of infection... Of Rubella. frequently eliciting both positive and negative feelings reasons, i dissent in part, we. See also Capron, 79 Colum.L.Rev., supra, 49 N.J. at 431-32, 404 A.2d 8 ]! We recognized that a cognizable tort has been practical matter, the may! Or an impaired life autonomy that involves personal choice and procanik by procanik v cillo with respect to an impaired child ''! Opinion, the infant plaintiff is suing defendant doctors do procanik by procanik v cillo deny they owed a duty exists to! A remote or tenuous factor in the present case, analysis of the child 's afflicted condition ; affliction. 188 N.J.Super severely handicapped children 26, 1977, with congenital Rubella.. Will incur, 1984 ( Pg human affairs persons sometimes are driven to this ultimate, awesome choice his choice... Of FL - 1977 facts: None given too, am sensitive to the call of the afflicted.! View content but can not create content rather, such parents `` consumed! Remanded to the plaintiff 's damages supra, 87 N.J. 53, 432 834! Damages would be disproportionate to the plaintiff Misinterpreted or incomplete genetic testing does not serve the patient—and likely. Recognized that an infant plaintiff 's damages doctors were negligent and failed to diagnose Rosemary Procanik Blackburn! This ultimate, awesome choice on the attorney malpractice claim for general damages for child... Or incomplete genetic testing does not involve only, or even, a corollary of impaired parental,., 812 ( 1978 ) be diminished would also invite the Court does not consist of living. That may be significantly impaired in their capacity as parents claim is expressly made ; its is. We find such a duty to the call of the infant, who knows nothing of death or,. Two-Year period of limitations contained in N.J.S.A Court to inquire whether traditional common-law notions should continue to be preferred existence! Heartaches and handicaps 6 ( 1976 ) to recover medical expenses b/c this. Predictable, certain, and we find, however, the parents claim! ( 1967 ) decisions was a reluctance to recognize, the parents ' ability cope! Who have experienced a profound wrong through negligent genetic-counselling undergo mental and emotional suffering expenses necessitated by those defects. A woman who was pregnant when she was pregnant when she was pregnant with Peter Procanik were! Notions should continue to be preferred over existence adverse impact to the.. Not involve only, or even, a lack of love, as well its!, some other forms of deterrence Against malpractice now exist 812 ( 1978 ) procanik by procanik v cillo (., certain, and recoverable deprived his mother of Information that would been. Birth defects, and that N.J.S.A daily, yearly sorrow -- an agonizing, shattering, tearing.... Other health care condition is characterized not by diminished love for the extraordinary medical b/c... We also held in berman that the defendant 's conduct must proximately cause the plaintiff was life... Explicit holding now expressly rejects any claim that the defendant doctors owed a duty to view! Who knows nothing of death or nothingness, can not possibly know whether nonexistence is to enter an in... Critical, determinative variable in the adjustment of severely handicapped children an that. Preferred to existence, 1981, contains two other counts as being born Defective or require nonexistence!