Chaffee v. Seslar
2003 Ind. LEXIS 331, 2003 WL 1888628, 786 N.E.2d 705 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for a medical negligence claim arising from a negligently performed sterilization procedure may include costs associated with the pregnancy and birth, but not the costs of raising a subsequently conceived normal, healthy child.
Facts:
- Heather Seslar, who had already borne four children, sought a sterilization procedure to prevent future pregnancies.
- On March 26, 1998, Dr. Kenneth Chaffee performed a partial salpingectomy, a type of sterilization surgery, on Seslar.
- Following the procedure, Seslar conceived a child.
- On August 5, 1999, Seslar delivered a healthy baby.
Procedural Posture:
- Heather Seslar filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Dr. Chaffee.
- In the trial court, Dr. Chaffee filed a motion for preliminary determination seeking to bar recovery for child-rearing costs.
- The trial court denied Dr. Chaffee's motion but certified its order for interlocutory appeal.
- Dr. Chaffee, as appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, siding with Seslar, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Indiana granted transfer to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana law permit a plaintiff to recover damages for the ordinary costs of raising and educating a normal, healthy child conceived after a negligently performed sterilization procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, J.
No. The costs involved in raising and educating a normal, healthy child conceived subsequent to an allegedly negligent sterilization procedure are not cognizable as damages. The court adopts the majority view among U.S. jurisdictions, holding that while damages may include pregnancy and childbearing expenses, they do not extend to child-rearing costs. This decision is based on the public policy rationale that all human life is presumptively invaluable and that the birth of a healthy child does not constitute a legal 'harm' or 'injury' to the parents. As a matter of law, the court holds that the value and benefits of parenthood outweigh the pecuniary burdens associated with raising a child.
Dissenting - Rucker, J.
Yes. The court should have affirmed the trial court's decision to allow recovery. The dissent argues that the majority departs from the principle established in Bader v. Johnson, which treated 'wrongful birth' claims under traditional medical negligence principles. Under those principles, a negligent tortfeasor is liable for all damages proximately caused by the breach of duty. The expense of raising an unplanned child is a direct and foreseeable consequence of a failed sterilization. The majority's decision carves out a policy-based exception that is inconsistent with standard tort law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Indiana's position within the majority of U.S. jurisdictions on damages in 'wrongful pregnancy' cases. It establishes a clear, bright-line rule that limits a physician's liability by barring recovery for child-rearing costs. The court's reasoning prioritizes public policy considerations—specifically the inherent value of human life—over a strict application of traditional tort principles of proximate cause and foreseeability of damages. This ruling significantly affects the potential scope and value of medical malpractice claims arising from failed sterilizations.
