Gelman v. Seiferts, 85 N.Y.2d 1023 (1995)

In a wrongful birth action, parents can only recover the increased financial obligations arising from the extraordinary medical treatment required by a child with disabilities during their minority, as there is no legal obligation for parental support after the child reaches the age of 21.

Summary

This case addresses the scope of damages recoverable in a “wrongful birth” action. The New York Court of Appeals held that parents could not recover from the defendant doctor’s estate the costs of extraordinary expenses for the support and care of their son, born with thalassemia major, after he reached 21 years of age. The court reasoned that under New York law, parents have no legal obligation to support a child after they reach the age of majority. The court emphasized that any extension of liability for post-majority expenses should be addressed by the legislature.

Facts

The plaintiff brought a “wrongful birth” action against the estate of the defendant doctor, seeking to recover costs associated with raising their son, who was born with thalassemia major, a serious genetic blood disorder. The plaintiffs sought to recover expenses incurred during the child’s minority and those expected to be incurred after the child reached the age of 21.

Procedural History

The trial court held that the plaintiff could not recover expenses related to the care of their child after the age of 21. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether, in a wrongful birth action, parents can recover the costs of extraordinary expenses for the support and special care of a child with a disability after the child reaches the age of 21, when there is no legal obligation for such support under New York law?

Holding

No, because under New York law, a parent has no legal obligation to continue the support of a child after the age of majority. Therefore, recovery is limited to the increased financial obligations arising from extraordinary medical treatment during the child’s minority.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the established principle that parental legal obligations to support a child cease when the child reaches the age of majority. The court cited various provisions of New York law, including the Family Court Act § 413(1), Domestic Relations Law § 32(3), and Social Services Law § 101(1), to support this principle. The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s assertion of a moral obligation to support their child beyond the age of 21 but emphasized that the scope of legally cognizable injury is limited to the period of legal obligation. The court stated that “plaintiff may be compensated only in the amount that represents his legally cognizable injury, namely the increased financial obligation arising from the extraordinary medical treatment rendered the child during minority.” The court referenced prior decisions, including Alquijay v. St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hosp. Center, 63 N.Y.2d 978, 979 and Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 413, to reinforce this limitation on damages in wrongful birth actions. The court explicitly deferred to the legislature on any potential expansion of liability, stating, “The argument that public policy is better served by permitting plaintiff to recover the cost of his son’s postmajority extraordinary expenses is more appropriately addressed to the Legislature.”