Shull v. Reid

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
258 P.3d 521 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a wrongful birth action arising before the enactment of a specific state statute limiting such claims, parents may recover the extraordinary medical expenses and other pecuniary losses proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. These damages are recoverable only until the child reaches the age of majority or for the duration of the child's life expectancy, whichever is shorter, and do not include damages for emotional distress or the normal costs of child-rearing.

Facts:

During the first trimester of her pregnancy, Patricia Shull contracted a Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection.
The Shulls' medical providers allegedly failed to diagnose the CMV infection.
The providers also allegedly failed to inform the Shulls of the significant health risks CMV posed to their unborn child.
On June 9, 2007, the Shulls' son was born with a CMV infection, which resulted in significant complications rendering him permanently and completely helpless.
The Shulls asserted that had they been properly informed of the virus and its risks, they would have terminated the pregnancy.
The Shulls did not claim that the medical providers caused or could have treated the CMV infection.

Procedural Posture:

The Shulls (Plaintiffs) filed a medical malpractice action against their medical providers (Defendants) in an Oklahoma district court (trial court) on June 8, 2009.
The Defendants filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that damages should be limited to the cost of continuing the pregnancy offset by the cost of termination.
The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, limiting the available damages.
Recognizing the issue as one of first impression, the trial court certified its ruling as a Certified Interlocutory Order for appellate review.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted the Shulls' Petition for Certiorari to review the trial court's order.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a medical malpractice action for 'wrongful birth' arising before the enactment of 63 O.S. § 1-741.11, are the parents' recoverable damages limited to the medical cost of continuing the pregnancy minus the cost of termination?

Opinions:

Majority - Combs, J.

No. In a wrongful birth action arising prior to the enactment of the 2008 statute, parents are not limited to the costs of pregnancy but may recover the extraordinary medical expenses and other pecuniary losses proximately caused by the negligence. The court distinguished prior 'wrongful conception' cases involving healthy children and instead looked to Kansas precedent, Arche v. United States, for guidance. It adopted the Arche holding, which allows recovery for extraordinary expenses caused by a child's handicaps but denies recovery for the normal costs of raising a child and for the parents' emotional distress. The court determined that a 2008 Oklahoma statute barring such damages could not be applied retrospectively to this case, as it represented a substantive change in the law. Therefore, the recoverable damages are limited to the extraordinary costs incurred during the shorter of the child's life expectancy or the age of majority.

Dissenting - Kauger, J.

The court should not decide this issue at this time. The dissent argues that the consideration of this question of 'first and last impression' is premature. The case should have been allowed to proceed to a full trial to develop a complete factual record before the appellate court ruled on the proper measure of damages. Deciding the issue on a certified interlocutory order without a completed record is procedurally improper.

Analysis:

This case established for the first time in Oklahoma the specific measure of damages recoverable in a 'wrongful birth' action for claims arising before a prohibitive statute was enacted in 2008. By adopting the 'extraordinary expenses' rule from other jurisdictions, the court recognized the tort while placing clear limits on recovery, excluding emotional distress and normal child-rearing costs. The decision's primary significance is its creation of a clear legal standard for a specific set of historical cases, as the Oklahoma legislature subsequently passed a law eliminating this cause of action for future claims. The court's analysis of retrospective application also reinforces the principle that statutes affecting substantive rights will not be applied to events that occurred before their enactment.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shull v. Reid (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature