Ferrara v. Bernstein, 81 N.Y.2d 531 (1993)
A medical facility can be held liable for emotional distress damages resulting from negligent abortion services, specifically the failure to inform a patient of an incomplete abortion, which leads to a traumatic miscarriage.
Summary
Ferrara underwent an abortion at Bernstein’s facility. A pathology report suggested the abortion was incomplete, but Ferrara was not informed. She later experienced a traumatic miscarriage, leading to emotional distress. The court held that the facility was liable for the emotional distress damages because the distress arose not merely from viewing the fetus but from the negligent failure to inform her of the incomplete abortion, compelling her to undergo an unplanned and traumatic miscarriage. This failure was a direct breach of duty owed to her, making the emotional distress compensable. The court distinguished this case from situations where pain arises solely from pregnancy or childbirth.
Facts
Plaintiff, Ferrara, underwent an abortion at a facility leased to defendant-doctor Bernstein after paying a fee.
The surgeon advised her about cramps and Tylenol but provided no further instructions.
The facility received a pathology report indicating a possibility that Ferrara was still pregnant but failed to notify her.
Ferrara canceled and rescheduled a follow-up appointment due to weather predictions.
Before the rescheduled appointment, Ferrara experienced worsening cramps and was taken to a hospital where she delivered a 4 ½-inch fetus.
During the delivery, a doctor emphasized that the expelled matter was a fetus, intensifying Ferrara’s emotional distress.
Ferrara claimed psychiatric care was needed because of posttraumatic depression, nightmares, sleeplessness, withdrawal, and reluctance to resume intimate relations.
Procedural History
Ferrara sued, arguing negligence in failing to advise her of the pathology report and failure to secure her prompt return to the facility.
The jury awarded Ferrara $125,000 in damages ($20,000 for pain and suffering and $105,000 for emotional distress).
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a medical facility is liable for emotional distress damages when a patient experiences a traumatic miscarriage due to the facility’s negligence in failing to inform her of an incomplete abortion.
Holding
Yes, because the emotional distress resulted from the facility’s breach of its duty to properly advise the plaintiff of her condition, which caused both physical and emotional injuries, and not merely from witnessing the fetus. The court found a causal relationship between the negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that a causal relationship existed between the negligence (failure to inform) and the injury (emotional distress from the miscarriage). The jury could infer Ferrara would have sought a second abortion had she been informed.
The court distinguished this case from situations where pain arises solely from pregnancy, emphasizing that Ferrara’s pain stemmed from the negligent abortion services, particularly the failure to notify her of the incomplete procedure and secure her prompt return.
The Appellate Division noted that the physical pains were not naturally associated with the agreed-upon abortion procedure. As the Appellate Division noted, the physical pains she suffered “most emphatically were not naturally associated with the abortion procedure for which she had contracted.” (179 AD2d 79, 84.)
The court emphasized that the emotional distress resulted from the failure to properly advise Ferrara of her condition, leading to the miscarriage, rather than simply from viewing the fetus. The Appellate Division stated, “Accordingly, this is a malpractice action based on the failure to properly advise plaintiff of her condition which caused both her physical and emotional injuries.” (179 AD2d, at 85.)
The court cited Martinez v Long Is. Jewish Hillside Med. Ctr., affirming that a breach of duty directly owed to the plaintiff, leading to emotional distress, is compensable. This case supports the proposition that emotional damages are recoverable when resulting from a breach of duty directly to the patient.