Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Procanik v. Cillo | 478 A.2d 755 (1984)

Historically, little recourse was available against doctors whose negligent treatment during pregnancy failed to alert a mother to a child’s likely birth defects. But after the United States Supreme Court recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in Roe versus Wade, some courts were more open to imposing liability for such conduct. In Procanik versus Cillo, the New Jersey Supreme Court explored wrongful-life claims as a means for recovering damages.

While in the first trimester of her pregnancy, Rosemarie Procanik informed her obstetrician, Joseph Cillo, that she’d recently been diagnosed with measles. She was unsure if it was German measles, also known as rubella, which could cause serious birth defects. Cillo ordered a test for rubella and the results indicated a past infection. He mistakenly interpreted the results to mean that Rosemarie had rubella as a child and was consequently immune. In fact, the past infection indicated by the test was the previously diagnosed measles infection suffered during pregnancy.

Believing that her unborn child hadn’t been exposed to rubella, Rosemarie carried her baby to term. But when her son Peter was born, he had congenital rubella syndrome and suffered from numerous birth defects, including heart disease, eye lesions, and hearing loss.

When Peter was three, a wrongful-life claim was asserted on his behalf against Cillo, alleging that Cillo’s negligent interpretation of Rosemarie’s test results prevented Rosemarie from terminating her pregnancy. Peter sought special damages to cover his health care expenses and also general damages for pain and suffering and for an impaired childhood. Cillo filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the suit.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that New Jersey didn’t recognize a cause of action for wrongful life. The Appellate Division affirmed, and Peter appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть