York v. Jones
1989 WL 77487, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7750, 717 F.Supp. 421 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cryopreservation agreement between progenitors and a medical facility creates a bailor-bailee relationship, granting the progenitors property rights in their frozen pre-zygote. This relationship obligates the facility to return the pre-zygote to the progenitors upon request for transfer to another facility, so long as the progenitors have not terminated their intent to achieve a pregnancy.
Facts:
- Steven York and Risa Adler-York (the Yorks) were a married couple unable to conceive a child through natural means.
- In the spring of 1986, the Yorks began receiving in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment at The Howard and Georgeanna Jones Institute For Reproductive Medicine (Jones Institute) in Virginia.
- The Yorks underwent four unsuccessful IVF attempts at the Jones Institute.
- Prior to their fourth attempt in May 1987, the Yorks signed a 'Cryopreservation Agreement' to allow for the freezing of any resulting pre-zygotes.
- During this attempt, six of Mrs. York's eggs were fertilized with Dr. York's sperm, creating six pre-zygotes. Five were transferred to Mrs. York, and the remaining one was cryogenically preserved by the Jones Institute.
- In May 1988, the Yorks, having moved to California, decided to continue their fertility treatment at a clinic in Los Angeles.
- The Yorks requested that the Jones Institute release their frozen pre-zygote for transfer to the California clinic.
- The Jones Institute, through its doctors, refused to consent to the transfer of the pre-zygote.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven and Risa York (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Dr. Howard Jones, Dr. Suheil Muasher, and the Medical College of Hampton Roads (defendants).
- The complaint alleged breach of contract, quasi-contract, detinue, and a Section 1983 claim for violation of constitutional rights.
- The plaintiffs initially filed a Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
- The defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
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 cryopreservation agreement between a couple and a fertility clinic create a bailment relationship that gives the couple the right to transfer their frozen pre-zygote to another clinic, even if inter-clinic transfer is not an option explicitly listed in the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Clarke, District Judge
Yes. The cryopreservation agreement establishes a bailment relationship that grants the progenitors the right to possess and transfer their pre-zygote. The court reasoned that the agreement created a bailment because the Jones Institute (bailee) had lawful possession of the Yorks' (bailors') property—the pre-zygote—and a duty to account for it. A fundamental aspect of a bailment is the bailee's absolute obligation to return the property to the bailor when the purpose of the bailment ends. The contract explicitly recognized the Yorks' property rights and gave them the 'principle responsibility to decide the disposition' of the pre-zygote. The court rejected the clinic's argument that the Yorks were limited to the three disposition options listed in the contract (donation, research, or thawing), finding that this clause only applied if the Yorks 'no longer wish to attempt to initiate a pregnancy,' which was contrary to the facts. Because the Yorks wished to end their patient relationship with the Jones Institute, the purpose of that specific bailment had terminated, obligating the clinic to return the property.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in reproductive technology law, establishing one of the first legal frameworks for disputes over cryopreserved human pre-embryos. By applying the common law principles of bailment and contract, the court characterized the pre-zygote as property for the purpose of resolving the dispute, thereby granting the progenitors significant control over its disposition. This decision set a crucial precedent that parental decisional authority over frozen pre-embryos is grounded in contract and property law, rather than granting absolute control to medical institutions. It shaped subsequent legal analysis in this area, particularly influencing how courts handle disputes between progenitors or between progenitors and clinics.
