In a highly anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court has weighed in on the contentious issue of what damages are recoverable when medical negligence results in the birth of a healthy child. The case, Michiel R. Noe, M.D., Individually and d/b/a Sun City Women’s Health Care, v. Grissel A. Velasco, has significant implications for medical malpractice law in Texas.
Background of the Case
Grissel A. Velasco sued her doctor, Michiel R. Noe, MD, alleging that he failed to perform a sterilization procedure she had paid for and then failed to inform her that the procedure was not performed. As a result, Velasco became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child, her fourth. She sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and the costs of raising the child.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Noe on all claims. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that Velasco had produced some evidence of duty, breach, and damages on her medical negligence claim. The Texas Supreme Court then took up the case to address the validity of a claim for medical negligence resulting in an unplanned pregnancy and birth of a healthy child, an issue of first impression for the court.
The Supreme Court’s Holding
In an opinion authored by Justice Rebeca A. Huddle, the Texas Supreme Court held that while a claim for medical negligence is recognized in this context under Texas law, the types of recoverable damages are significantly limited compared to a typical negligence case.
The court rejected Velasco’s broad conception of available damages, holding that Texas law does not regard a healthy child as an injury for which a parent must be compensated. Therefore, the court ruled that noneconomic damages like mental anguish and pain and suffering, as well as the economic costs of raising the healthy child, are not recoverable as a matter of law.
However, the court did find that certain economic damages are recoverable – specifically, the medical expenses proximately caused by the negligence and incurred during pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period. The unsuccessful sterilization procedure costs would also be recoverable.
But in Velasco’s case, the court noted she had not submitted any evidence of these potentially compensable damages in response to Dr. Noe’s no-evidence summary judgment motion. Without evidence of damages, she failed to raise a genuine fact issue, so the trial court’s summary judgment for Dr. Noe was proper.
Implications for Medical Malpractice Law
This decision marks an important development in Texas medical malpractice law. It establishes that in cases where alleged medical negligence leads to the birth of a healthy child, a viable cause of action exists but the scope of recoverable damages is substantially circumscribed.
By categorically barring recovery of childrearing expenses and noneconomic damages, the court has limited the potential liability exposure for obstetricians and other medical providers in these types of cases. The policy rationale is that Texas law considers a healthy child a blessing, not an injury to be compensated.
At the same time, the court left the door open for plaintiffs to recover certain provable economic damages stemming directly from the negligent acts or omissions, such as medical costs. This preserves some avenue of recourse for plaintiffs while avoiding the thorny issues of offsetting the joys of parenthood against the associated burdens.
The court was careful to distinguish these cases from other medical malpractice situations where a provider’s negligence results in “death, disability or other adverse iatrogenic consequences.” A healthy child is simply not a legal injury in the same sense.
While this decision provides some welcomed clarity, it may not be the final word on this sensitive issue. The Texas legislature could choose to weigh in, and future courts will have to grapple with the opinion’s real-world application. For now though, Noe v. Velasco reaffirms Texas’ strong public policy in favor of the “inherent dignity and profound, immeasurable value” of human life, even when unplanned.