Wendy Norman v. Xytex Corporation
830 S.E.2d 267, 350 Ga. App. 731 (2019)
Rule of Law:
Georgia law does not recognize 'wrongful birth' actions, which are claims brought by parents alleging that they would have aborted a fetus had they known certain facts, thereby preventing the birth of a child, even when such claims are disguised as other causes of action.
Facts:
- Wendy and Janet Norman purchased sperm from Xytex Corporation.
- Xytex Corporation had procured the sperm from a man identified as 'Donor #9623,' who began selling his sperm to Xytex in October 2000.
- Wendy Norman gave birth to a son, A. A., in June 2002.
- A. A. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder at age nine and Thalassemia Minor, and also experienced 'suicidal and homicidal ideations,' requiring various medications.
- Donor #9623's Xytex sperm donor application and profile represented him as having an IQ of 160, multiple college degrees, a clean mental health history, and no criminal background.
- In reality, Donor #9623 did not obtain a college degree until 2015, had been diagnosed with 'Schizophrenia, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a drug induced psychotic disorder, and significant grandiose delusions,' and had been repeatedly hospitalized for mental health reasons.
- Donor #9623 committed a residential burglary in 2005, serving eight months in custody, and had been arrested for other crimes.
- The Appellants alleged that had they known the true facts about Donor #9623, they would not have purchased his sperm from the Appellees.
Procedural Posture:
- Wendy and Janet Norman (Appellants) purchased sperm from Xytex Corporation.
- Appellants brought suit against Xytex Corporation, J. Todd Spradlin, M. D., and Mary Hartley (Appellees) in the trial court, asserting claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, products liability, strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, battery, unfair business practices, specific performance, false advertising, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
- Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the complaint alleged claims for 'wrongful birth,' which are not legally recognized in Georgia.
- The trial court granted in part and denied in part the Appellees’ motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims except for the claim for specific performance.
- The trial court certified its order for immediate review.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the Appellants’ application for interlocutory review, leading to this appeal.
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 Georgia law recognize claims that are fundamentally 'wrongful birth' actions, even if styled as other causes of action, where parents seek damages for the birth of a child with impairments, contending they would have prevented the child's birth had they known misrepresented facts about a sperm donor?
Opinions:
Majority - Reese, J.
No, Georgia law does not recognize claims that are fundamentally 'wrongful birth' actions, even when parents attempt to characterize them as other causes of action, because the state's Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such claims without a clear legislative mandate. The court reaffirmed that an action for 'wrongful birth' arises when parents of an impaired child allege that, but for the defendant's treatment or advice, they would have aborted the fetus, thereby preventing the child's birth. This principle applies even when plaintiffs attempt to recharacterize such claims, as the Appellants did by asserting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other torts. The court distinguished 'wrongful birth' from 'wrongful pregnancy' or 'wrongful conception' actions, which are recognized in Georgia and involve negligence leading to an undesired conception, such as a failed sterilization. In the present case, the Appellants sought and desired A.A.'s conception, but claimed they would not have purchased Donor #9623's sperm if they had known his true background. This directly aligns with a 'wrongful birth' claim, which the Supreme Court of Georgia has consistently refused to recognize, stating an unwillingness to declare that 'life, even life with severe impairments, may ever amount to a legal injury.' The court emphasized that a thorough assessment of public policy considerations and the establishment of new torts like 'wrongful birth' is a task best suited to the legislature.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces Georgia's established public policy against recognizing 'wrongful birth' claims, even in novel factual scenarios involving sperm donor fraud. It clarifies that the substance of the claim, i.e., whether it seeks damages for the birth of a child that would have otherwise been prevented, dictates its classification as 'wrongful birth,' irrespective of how plaintiffs frame it. The decision underscores the judiciary's deference to the legislature in creating new causes of action that involve complex public policy considerations regarding the value of human life. Future litigants in Georgia seeking to recover for the birth of a child with impairments will face substantial hurdles if their claims are construed as attempts to recover for the child's existence rather than for the unwanted conception itself.
