2 N.Y.3d 148 (2004)

Medical malpractice resulting in a miscarriage or stillbirth constitutes a breach of duty of care to the expectant mother, entitling her to damages for emotional distress, even in the absence of an independent physical injury.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals overturned its prior precedent in Tebbutt v. Virostek, holding that a mother can recover damages for emotional distress caused by medical malpractice leading to a miscarriage or stillbirth, even without an independent physical injury. The court reasoned that medical professionals owe a duty of care to the expectant mother, and malpractice resulting in stillbirth or miscarriage is a direct violation of that duty. This decision aligns New York with the majority of jurisdictions and recognizes the emotional harm suffered by mothers in these circumstances, even when they don’t suffer independent physical harm.

Facts

Broadnax: Karen Broadnax experienced significant vaginal bleeding during her pregnancy. Despite these symptoms, medical staff delayed appropriate treatment, resulting in a stillborn child due to placental abruption.

Fahey: Debra Ann Fahey, pregnant with twins, reported severe abdominal pain and nausea. Her doctor, relying on a previous examination, dismissed her symptoms. She later prematurely delivered both twins, who did not survive, due to an undiagnosed incompetent cervix.

Procedural History

Broadnax: The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the Appellate Division affirmed, citing Tebbutt.

Fahey: The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Appellate Division affirmed, relying on Tebbutt.

The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed the Appellate Division orders in both.

Issue(s)

Whether, absent a showing of independent physical injury, a mother may recover damages for emotional harm when medical malpractice causes a miscarriage or stillbirth?

Holding

Yes, because medical malpractice resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth should be construed as a violation of the duty of care to the expectant mother, entitling her to damages for emotional distress, even without an independent physical injury.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals overruled Tebbutt because it created a logical inconsistency in the law. Infants injured in utero who survive can sue for their injuries, and pregnant mothers can sue for independent injuries. However, Tebbutt immunized medical caregivers from liability when their malpractice caused a miscarriage or stillbirth. The Court reasoned that a doctor owes a duty of care to the expectant mother as the patient. The Court stated, “[e]ven in the absence of an independent injury, medical malpractice resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth should be construed as a violation of a duty of care to the expectant mother, entitling her to damages for emotional distress.”

The court also addressed concerns about expanding liability, stating that while line-drawing is necessary, clinging to an indefensible line is not justified. The dissent argued that Tebbutt established a workable rule, but the majority found it outdated and creating a gap in the law where an aggrieved class of plaintiffs was denied recovery. The majority noted, “[i]f the fetus cannot bring suit, ‘it must follow in the eyes of the law that any injury here was done to the mother.’”

The court also noted that most jurisdictions permit some form of recovery for negligently caused stillbirths or miscarriages. New York’s ruling limits a mother’s recovery to damages for emotional distress attending a stillbirth or miscarriage caused by medical malpractice, and does not allow a wrongful death claim for the fetus.