Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp.
530 So. 2d 1151, 1988 La. LEXIS 1598, 74 A.L.R. 4th 777 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician who negligently performs a sterilization procedure is liable to the parents for foreseeable damages resulting from the pregnancy, but not for the costs of raising the child or for an unforeseeable congenital defect. A physician does not owe a duty to an unconceived child for a birth defect unless the physician knew or should have known of the specific risk of that defect.
Facts:
- Tammy Pitre underwent a bilateral tubal ligation performed by Dr. John Kempf on April 25, 1984, with the intent of being sterilized.
- The surgery was performed at Opelousas General Hospital.
- A subsequent pathology report indicated that Dr. Kempf had severed the wrong tissue, meaning the sterilization procedure had failed.
- Neither Dr. Kempf nor the hospital informed Tammy Pitre or her husband, Dwain Pitre, that the operation was unsuccessful.
- Following the failed procedure, Tammy Pitre became pregnant with a third child.
- She gave birth to a daughter, Hannah, who was born with albinism, a congenital defect.
Procedural Posture:
- Tammy and Dwain Pitre, on their own behalf and for their minor child Hannah, sued Dr. John Kempf and Opelousas General Hospital in a Louisiana trial court.
- The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and a motion to strike certain damages claims.
- The trial court overruled the defendants' motions and exceptions.
- Dr. Kempf (defendant/appellant) sought a pretrial writ from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, sustained the exception of no cause of action as to Hannah Pitre's 'wrongful life' claim, and granted the motion to strike, thereby limiting the parents' recoverable damages.
- The Pitres (plaintiffs/applicants) were granted a writ by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
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 a physician's duty of care for a negligently performed sterilization extend to (1) the parents' damages for emotional distress and child-rearing costs, and (2) the unconceived child's damages for being born with a congenital defect that was not directly caused by the physician's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
No, as to the child's claim and the full extent of the parents' claimed damages. A physician who negligently performs a sterilization owes a duty to the parents for all foreseeable consequences, which includes pregnancy-related expenses, pain and suffering, and emotional distress from having an unplanned child, but not for the ordinary economic costs of raising a child, which public policy deems a net benefit. The physician's duty does not extend to the child's 'wrongful life' claim or the parents' special damages for a congenital defect like albinism, unless the physician knew or should have known of the specific risk of such a defect, because such a harm is not a foreseeable consequence of the negligent sterilization itself. While the court recognizes that a duty can be owed to an unconceived child in theory, the plaintiffs here failed to allege facts showing the doctor could have foreseen the risk of albinism.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the scope of recoverable damages in 'wrongful conception' cases in Louisiana, adopting a 'limited recovery' rule. By allowing recovery for pregnancy costs and emotional distress but denying the costs of child-rearing, the court balances compensating the parents' direct harm with the public policy view that a child's life is a net positive. The opinion is also significant for acknowledging the theoretical possibility of a 'preconception tort'—a duty owed to a not-yet-conceived person—if the harm (such as a specific birth defect) is foreseeable to the physician. This opens the door for future claims while setting a high bar for foreseeability, thus shaping the boundaries of medical malpractice liability for generations to come.
