Walker v. Rinck
604 NE2d 591, 1992 WL 354247, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 260 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child has a legally cognizable cause of action for injuries resulting from a healthcare provider's negligence that occurred prior to the child's conception. A physician's duty of care extends to the future, unconceived children of a patient when the medical treatment at issue is administered for the express purpose of protecting those future children.
Facts:
- In October 1975, Mrs. Walker, who was pregnant, informed her physician, Dr. Rinck, that she had Rh negative blood.
- Dr. Rinck ordered blood tests from Lake Ridge Laboratory, which erroneously reported that Mrs. Walker had Rh positive blood.
- Relying on the incorrect test results, Dr. Rinck did not administer a RhoGAM injection to Mrs. Walker after she gave birth to her first child in June 1976.
- Because Mrs. Walker was actually Rh negative and her first child was Rh positive, she developed antibodies that could harm future fetuses.
- In 1979, Mrs. Walker had a miscarriage and was informed that she had already developed the harmful antibodies.
- Mrs. Walker subsequently gave birth to Nathan in 1981 and twins Kathy and Jennifer in 1985.
- Nathan, Kathy, and Jennifer (the Walker children) were all born with various health problems, including anemia, respiratory issues, hearing impairments, and developmental deficiencies, allegedly caused by their mother's untreated Rh sensitization.
Procedural Posture:
- The Walker children filed a lawsuit against Dr. Rinck and Lake Ridge Laboratory, Inc. in an Indiana trial court.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
- The Walker children appealed the trial court's decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Indiana does not recognize a pre-conception tort.
- The Walker children (appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of Indiana for transfer to resolve a conflict with a different appellate court 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 child have a viable cause of action for injuries sustained as a result of a healthcare provider's alleged negligence that occurred before the child was conceived?
Opinions:
Majority - Krahulik, Justice
Yes, under the facts of this case, a child may maintain a cause of action for injuries resulting from the negligence of a physician and a medical laboratory prior to the conception of the child. The court rejected the argument that this was a prohibited "wrongful life" claim, defining it instead as a recognizable "pre-conception tort." To determine if the defendants owed a duty to the unconceived children, the court applied a three-factor test from Webb v. Jarvis: (1) relationship, (2) foreseeability, and (3) public policy. First, a sufficient relationship existed because the children were the intended third-party beneficiaries of the RhoGAM treatment, whose sole purpose is to protect future children. Second, the harm was highly foreseeable, as preventing such injuries is the exact medical reason for administering RhoGAM. Third, public policy supports imposing a duty because, unlike other cases, the treatment posed no risk to the mother and was solely for the future child's benefit, thus creating no conflict for the physician. The court also held that the parents' decision to conceive children after learning of the risk was not a superseding cause because future pregnancies were a foreseeable event.
Dissenting - Shepard, Chief Justice
No, a cause of action for a pre-conception tort should not be recognized. This new tort creates an unacceptably long period of potential liability for medical providers, exposing them to claims for decades or even generations after the initial treatment. The resulting lawsuits would require juries to pass judgment on the parents' personal and moral choice to conceive children despite knowing the health risks. The Chief Justice argued that the parents' decision to conceive after gaining knowledge of the Rh sensitization was a clear intervening cause that should break the chain of liability. The proper cause of action should belong to the parents for the loss of their ability to bear healthy children, not to the children themselves.
Analysis:
This decision formally recognized the tort of pre-conception negligence in Indiana, significantly expanding the scope of medical malpractice liability. By establishing that a physician's duty can extend to the unconceived children of a patient, the court moved beyond the traditional requirement of a direct physician-patient relationship. The ruling treats future children as foreseeable third-party beneficiaries of certain medical treatments, particularly those intended for their protection. This precedent prevents defendants from using the parents' subsequent choice to conceive as an absolute defense, reframing it as a foreseeable consequence of the initial negligence rather than a superseding cause.
