Perry-Rogers v. Obasaju
723 N.Y.S.2d 28, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3415, 282 A.D.2d 231 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for purely emotional harm, even in the absence of physical injury, when a defendant breaches a direct duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and the breach is a direct cause of the emotional harm, provided the claim is supported by evidence that guarantees its genuineness.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Donna and Richard Perry-Rogers underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment provided by defendants.
- As part of the treatment, defendants were entrusted with the plaintiffs' embryos.
- Defendants mistakenly implanted the plaintiffs' embryo into the uterus of another woman.
- The other woman became pregnant and gave birth to the plaintiffs' biological child.
- Plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to experience the pregnancy, prenatal bonding, and the birth of their child.
- Following the birth, plaintiffs were separated from their child for more than four months.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Perry-Rogers filed a lawsuit against defendants in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court), alleging medical malpractice and seeking damages for emotional harm.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the cause of action for medical malpractice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- Defendants, as defendants-appellants, appealed the trial court's denial to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (an intermediate appellate 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:
Under New York law, may plaintiffs recover damages for purely emotional harm resulting from a fertility clinic's breach of its duty of care when it mistakenly implanted their embryo into another woman?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion
Yes, plaintiffs may recover for purely emotional harm in this specific context. This case is distinguished from prohibited 'wrongful birth' claims because plaintiffs do not seek damages for the existence of a child, but rather for the emotional harm caused by being deprived of the experiences of pregnancy, birth, and bonding, and for the subsequent separation from their child. The court held that damages for emotional harm are recoverable without physical injury where a defendant breaches a direct duty owed to the plaintiff that directly results in emotional harm. It was foreseeable that implanting the plaintiffs' embryo in a stranger would cause severe emotional distress. The plaintiffs' claim is viable because their medical affidavits attesting to objective, physical manifestations of their emotional trauma provide the necessary 'guarantee of genuineness' required for such a claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of recovery for purely emotional distress in medical malpractice cases, particularly in the emerging field of assisted reproductive technology. It distinguishes the profound emotional harm from a mishandled IVF process from the legally non-cognizable harm in 'wrongful birth' cases. By emphasizing the direct duty owed by the fertility clinic to the intended parents, the court affirmed that the foreseeable emotional consequences of such a fundamental breach are compensable. The ruling solidifies the requirement for a 'guarantee of genuineness,' such as objective physical manifestations of trauma, to support claims for purely emotional harm, thereby preventing a potential flood of unsubstantiated claims while providing a remedy for legitimate, severe emotional injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Perry-Rogers v. Obasaju