Med Mal News

On Oct. 15, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court agreed to take on the case of Semovitz v. Dershaw , in which the court will indirectly address the viability of wrongful birth and wrongful life suits in that state. The case was brought by parents of a boy born with a genetic disorder. The mother underwent tests early in her pregnancy to see if she was a carrier of the disorder, familial dysautonomia (F.D.). Although she tested positive, the plaintiff claims she was never informed of this fact. Had she known, she says, her husband would have been tested as well, as only two parents with the pertinent mutation can pass it along to a child. The parents say they did not learn they both carried the mutation until their son was born with the F.D., which will cause him to suffer during life, and result in his premature death. Had they known, they might have terminated the pregnancy. They are now seeking damages for wrongful birth, and they are suing on behalf of their son for wrongful life. The trial court threw the case out because Pennsylvania's Act 47 of 1988 prohibits suits for wrongful birth and wrongful life. On appeal, the a three-judge panel of the Superior Court declared parts of Act 47 unconstitutional based on the single-subject rule and remanded the case for trial. The Supreme Court arguments will turn on the procedure used by the Superior Court to strike down the law but the effect of the decision will directly impact wrongful-birth and wrongful-life cases in the state and how attorneys approach them. “It's not going to open the floodgates for litigation,” said Carol Nelson Shepherd of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig in Philadelphia. “It's going to be a relatively rare occurrence … but it will be a sea change because many attorneys prior to this case would have just turned the cases away.”

'

Medical Bills: No More Surprises

New York patients will soon benefit from legislation to protect them from unexpected fees for services they may never have asked for. The state's pioneering law will require doctors, hospitals and other medical care providers to inform patients about out-of-pocket costs of care prior to providing it. This will eliminate a problem many people have experienced: receiving a huge bill for, say, the services of an assistant surgeon who is not in the patient's insurance network, even though the patient was never informed that anyone would assist her surgeon, and that she would have to pay for those services out-of-pocket.

PA Case's Outcome May Affect Validity of Wrongful Birth Suits

On Oct. 15, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court agreed to take on the case of Semovitz v. Dershaw , in which the court will indirectly address the viability of wrongful birth and wrongful life suits in that state. The case was brought by parents of a boy born with a genetic disorder. The mother underwent tests early in her pregnancy to see if she was a carrier of the disorder, familial dysautonomia (F.D.). Although she tested positive, the plaintiff claims she was never informed of this fact. Had she known, she says, her husband would have been tested as well, as only two parents with the pertinent mutation can pass it along to a child. The parents say they did not learn they both carried the mutation until their son was born with the F.D., which will cause him to suffer during life, and result in his premature death. Had they known, they might have terminated the pregnancy. They are now seeking damages for wrongful birth, and they are suing on behalf of their son for wrongful life. The trial court threw the case out because Pennsylvania's Act 47 of 1988 prohibits suits for wrongful birth and wrongful life. On appeal, the a three-judge panel of the Superior Court declared parts of Act 47 unconstitutional based on the single-subject rule and remanded the case for trial. The Supreme Court arguments will turn on the procedure used by the Superior Court to strike down the law but the effect of the decision will directly impact wrongful-birth and wrongful-life cases in the state and how attorneys approach them. “It's not going to open the floodgates for litigation,” said Carol Nelson Shepherd of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig in Philadelphia. “It's going to be a relatively rare occurrence … but it will be a sea change because many attorneys prior to this case would have just turned the cases away.”

'