A wrongful birth nets $23.5 million

A geneticist fails to diagnose Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome. The jury awards a $23.5 million verdict, but the couple now needs to lobby the government:

A jury determined Monday that the University of South Florida was 90 percent at fault for the “wrongful birth” of their child, Caleb, who has a genetic disorder and will require constant care for the rest of his life. The school, therefore, should pay the bulk of the $23.5 million, the jury determined.
USF, however, is a division of Florida’s government. Under state law, the most the school has to pay for lawsuits is $200,000. Payment of a jury award higher than that would require an act of the Legislature.

Comments

Anonymous
Just another lottery winner!
Art Good
“wrongful birth”
What the heck is that? Don’t get pregnant in the first place! There is no such thing as a “wrongful birth” only “wrongful parents.”
Anonymous
Doctors had better organize!! They’re coming to get you.
Why wait until things are bad for you individually? Where’s the AMA?…the bastards!!
Where is the voice of the physicians?!!
Anonymous
The signs and symptoms of Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome vary widely. Mildly affected individuals may have only minor physical abnormalities with learning and behavioral problems.
In other words, it is obscure and tough to diagnose. Tell me the truth, how many cases have you ever seen?
Another winner in the corrupt jackpot :”justice” lottery. Maybe.
Anonymous
How does one define the “standard of care” for diagnosing an extremely rare and variable condition? Is this negligience or just misforture? Well, the jury has spoken but I wonder how well grounded it was on sound legal definitions of malpractice.
DR. MARY JOHNSON
??”Wrongful birth”???
Good luck with lobbying the Florida legislature on handing 20-some million to ONE CHILD.
As for the AMA, “the voice of the physicians” splintered and sold its soul years ago. And the Horcruxes are now hidden everywhere.
Anonymous
From the article:
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBX18Z5J4F.html
“……When Amara Estrada was pregnant with Caleb, a simple test could have found the disorder before he was born. If they knew Caleb would be born with the disorder, they said in their lawsuit, they would have terminated the pregnancy…..”
What is the “simple” antenatal test?
I don’t know enough about the disease. Is there a genetic probe that can be picked up on amniocentesis or CVS, or is the writer alluding to ultrasound findings?
Cathy
The biggest issue is the kind of parents this poor little boy is going to have.
I dont understand what is wrong with people in today’s world. When I was having my kids you didn’t worry about every imaginable illness, and demand they been checked during gestation for them. You took what you got and you loved them unconditionally.
Anonymous
That is an outrageous jury finding. First is the presumption that a disease with variable expression, and a very rare one at that, is going to be diagnosed with certainty enough to reliably advise this couple to abort a second pregnancy. Second is the entire underlying presumption that this couple was somehow guauranteed healthy children simply because they consulted with a specialist.
Where was the judgment of the court in this? So the jury was derelict, does the judge have to be as well? The traditional common law holding is that there is no such thing as a “wrongful birth.” Is Florida asserting some new foundation to its laws?
Anonymous
Well, we know at least one doctor who has seen the evidence agreed with it. Those of you who disagree, what in the records did you disagree with?
Anonymous
Well…in future cases I think the doctor should just say “No I don’t know what your 1st child has, but yes I do think its going to happen again” even if they think differently and for no other reason than to cover themselves.
that’ll show em.
Anonymous
“Well, we know at least one doctor who has seen the evidence agreed with it”
Yeah the doctor who was payed for his testimony. Some unbiased source.
Anonymous
Paid for it and saw the evidence v. you, someone who hasn’t seen the evidence and not surprisingly, wasn’t paid for his opinion. Which do you think is more valuable?
Did the defense expert work for free?
Anonymous
>>”Paid for it and saw the evidence v. you, someone who hasn’t seen the evidence and not surprisingly, wasn’t paid for his opinion. Which do you think is more valuable?”
Which do you think is more predictable?
Anonymous
Did the parents do anything to mitigate their risk?
Did they seek a second opinion from another geneticist about their first child that at least might have confirmed they were not at greater risk of having a second child with the same disorder? Did they consider adoption regardless of the fact that no definitive diagnosis was given to them of their first child’s disorder? Did they consider an anonymous sperm donor to further diminish the risk? Did they have CVS or amniocentesis done after conceiving their second child, given their after-the-fact expression in their willingness to abort? If not, why not?
It seems to me that the couple had many choices: no more children, adoption, further consultation befor conceiving, post-conception testing.
It seems to me a court-ordered advocate should represent the second child and sue the parents, if his birth is in fact so wrong as to merit that gigantic award. Since when does the doctor pick the kid’s genes?
Anonymous
“Which do you think is more predictable?”
If the one who knows nothing is another physician, clearly that person.
Ming-Chih
GeneReviews.
Screening tests that may have been suggestive:
“
In pregnancies in which there is no FH of SLOS
* The combination of low concentrations of unconjugated estriol, HCG, and AFP on routine maternal serum testing at 16-18 weeks’ gestation
* U/S findings such as cardiac defects, cleft palate, genital abnormalities, growth retardation, or apparent female phenotype with 46,XY karyotype from CVS or amniocentesis
* Low maternal serum concentrations of unconjugated estriol levels
“
So the prenatal triple screen and prenatal U/S *may* have detected this. But these tests are tuned for screening more common congenital abnormalities like Down’s. The test characteristics are not great for a rare disorder like SLOS. (GeneReviews quote a PPV of 1% using triple screen)

A wrongful birth nets $23.5 million

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels