Kayla Doherty v. Merck & Co., Inc.
154 A.3d 1202, 2017 ME 19, 2017 WL 370894 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maine's wrongful birth statute, which declares that the birth of a healthy child is not a legally recognizable injury, bars claims for damages against any defendant, including a drug manufacturer. The statute's narrow exception for a "failed sterilization procedure" applies only to medical or surgical procedures intended to be permanent, not to temporary, reversible forms of contraception.
Facts:
- In January 2012, Kayla Doherty visited a health center to inquire about birth control and was recommended an implantable contraceptive rod manufactured by Merck, designed to prevent pregnancy for at least three years.
- Merck knew or should have known that the applicator for its implant had a history of failed insertions, where the rod would remain in the applicator unknown to the physician.
- On February 28, 2012, a physician performed the implantation procedure on Doherty but failed to check her arm to confirm the rod had been successfully inserted.
- The contraceptive rod was never actually inserted into Doherty's arm.
- In October 2013, Doherty was confirmed to be pregnant; subsequent examinations failed to locate the rod in her arm.
- On June 9, 2014, Doherty gave birth to a healthy son following a long and painful delivery.
- Doherty incurred medical expenses, lost wages, and suffered physical and emotional distress due to the unplanned pregnancy.
Procedural Posture:
- Kayla Doherty filed a complaint against Merck & Co., Inc., and the United States in the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
- Doherty's claims against Merck included strict product liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation; claims against the United States were for physician negligence and failure to obtain informed consent.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by Maine's wrongful birth statute.
- The U.S. District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.
- Finding no controlling state precedent, the U.S. District Court certified three questions of law regarding the interpretation of 24 M.R.S. § 2931 to the Maine Supreme Judicial 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 Maine's wrongful birth statute (24 M.R.S. § 2931) bar a plaintiff from recovering damages from a drug manufacturer for the birth of a healthy child following the failure of a long-term, reversible contraceptive implant?
Opinions:
Majority - Mead, J.
Yes, Maine's wrongful birth statute bars the plaintiff's claim. The statute's plain language prohibits any person from maintaining a claim for damages based on the birth of a healthy child, regardless of the defendant's identity, thereby protecting product manufacturers as well as healthcare providers. The statute's narrow exception for a 'failed sterilization procedure' does not apply because 'sterilization' refers to medical or surgical procedures intended to render a person permanently incapable of procreation, such as a tubal ligation or vasectomy. The contraceptive implant at issue was a temporary and reversible pharmaceutical intervention, not a permanent sterilization, so the exception is inapplicable and the general prohibition bars recovery of any damages.
Concurring - Saufley, C.J.
I concur with the majority's holding, but this decision should be understood within its limited scope. The court was not asked to determine the constitutionality of the statute or whether it would bar claims for distinct injuries that might arise if a pregnancy posed a serious or fatal health risk to the mother. This opinion clarifies that the court's answers do not address these potential issues. Furthermore, I note that medical technology has advanced beyond the Legislature's original definitions, suggesting that the statutory language concerning 'sterilization' requires legislative re-examination in light of modern contraceptive methods.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the protective scope of Maine's wrongful birth statute, extending its immunity from liability beyond medical practitioners to include manufacturers of contraceptive products. By establishing a bright-line rule distinguishing permanent 'sterilization' from temporary 'contraception,' the court forecloses recovery for failed modern contraceptive methods like IUDs and hormonal implants when a healthy child is born. The concurrence highlights the tension between the dated statutory language and modern medical realities, signaling potential future legal challenges on constitutional grounds or in cases involving harm to the mother beyond the birth itself.
Unlock the full brief for Kayla Doherty v. Merck & Co., Inc.