Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center
962 P.2d 67, 1998 Utah LEXIS 57, 349 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that the distress result in illness or bodily harm and be so severe that a reasonable, normally constituted person would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances.
Facts:
- David and Stephanie Harnicher sought infertility treatment at the University of Utah Medical Center.
- They chose an in vitro fertilization procedure using a mix of David's sperm and sperm from a donor who physically resembled David.
- The purpose of selecting a matching donor was to allow the Harnichers to believe and represent that any resulting children were biologically David's.
- Stephanie Harnicher alleges she specifically and exclusively selected donor #183, who had curly dark hair and brown eyes like David.
- The Medical Center negligently used sperm from donor #83, who had straight auburn hair and green eyes.
- Stephanie gave birth to triplets.
- Blood tests on the children revealed they could not have been fathered by David or donor #183, and a DNA test later confirmed donor #83 was the biological father.
- In their depositions, both David and Stephanie Harnicher testified that they had not experienced any bodily harm as a result of the mix-up.
Procedural Posture:
- David and Stephanie Harnicher sued the University of Utah Medical Center in a state trial court for medical malpractice, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The Medical Center moved for summary judgment.
- In response, the Harnichers filed an affidavit from a psychologist detailing their psychological diagnoses and physical symptoms.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Medical Center, concluding the plaintiffs had sustained no physical harm or injury to support their claim.
- The Harnichers (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Utah Supreme Court.
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 the mistaken use of the wrong sperm donor in an in vitro fertilization procedure give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when the parents do not suffer verifiable bodily harm as a result, and their distress stems from the destruction of their plan to believe the resulting children were biologically the husband's?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Howe
No. The mistaken use of the wrong sperm donor does not give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under these circumstances. To state a claim, a plaintiff must show resulting illness or bodily harm from distress so severe that a reasonable person would be unable to cope. The court disregarded the psychologist's affidavit listing physical symptoms because it directly contradicted the Harnichers' prior sworn deposition testimony denying any bodily harm, and a party cannot create an issue of fact by submitting a contradictory affidavit. The court declined to decide if a diagnosed mental illness alone could suffice, instead holding that the underlying harm—the destruction of a 'fiction' that allowed the couple to believe David was the father—is not a legally cognizable injury. The court reasoned that exposure to the truth is not a tort and that the birth of three healthy children does not present circumstances with which a reasonable person would be unable to cope.
Dissenting - Associate Chief Justice Durham
Yes. The Harnichers presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment and have their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress heard by a jury. The dissent argues that the majority mischaracterizes the harm as the loss of a 'fiction' when it was the loss of the 'alternative reality' the Medical Center contracted to provide. The dissent contends that a diagnosed mental illness, such as the major depressive and anxiety disorders diagnosed by the psychologist, qualifies as an 'illness' under the Restatement standard, separate from the 'bodily harm' requirement. Furthermore, the psychologist's affidavit detailed numerous physical manifestations of this illness, creating a disputed issue of material fact that a jury should resolve. The dissent criticizes the majority for dismissing the Harnichers' deep-seated desire for biological continuity as trivial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Utah for direct victims. By applying a high threshold for the severity of distress—that which a 'reasonable person' could not cope with—the court limits claims arising from emotionally devastating but not physically perilous events. The ruling reinforces judicial skepticism toward purely psychological injuries by refusing to decide if mental illness alone is sufficient and by strictly applying the rule against self-contradictory affidavits to exclude evidence of physical symptoms. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring NIED claims in novel contexts like reproductive malpractice unless they can demonstrate clear, verifiable physical manifestations of their distress from the outset.
Unlock the full brief for Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center