30 N.Y.3d 608
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2017Background
- Two couples (Dennehy and Farber) underwent IVF using anonymous donor eggs from defendants (Dr. Copperman and RMA); donors were represented as screened but plaintiffs were not told which conditions were screened.
- After live births (single and twins), defendants learned the donor carried the fragile X trait and informed the parents within a year; testing confirmed two children had the full fragile X mutation.
- Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice alleging failure to screen or disclose, and sought recovery of "extraordinary expenses" for care of children with disabilities under the cause of action recognized in Becker v. Schwartz.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time‑barred under CPLR 214‑a (2.5‑year malpractice statute), arguing accrual ran from the date of the alleged negligent act (implantation), which would make claims untimely.
- Trial court and Appellate Division held the extraordinary‑expenses claims accrued at birth; the Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the limitations period runs from the date of birth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a parents' "extraordinary expenses" malpractice cause of action accrue for statute of limitations purposes? | Accrues at date of birth (limitations run from birth). | Accrues at date of malpractice/act or omission (implantation); limitations run from the negligent act per CPLR 214‑a. | Accrues at birth; CPLR 214‑a does not require running from the malpractice date when the cause cannot accrue before birth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401 (recognition of parents' cause to recover extraordinary expenses resulting from birth of a disabled child)
- LaBello v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 85 N.Y.2d 701 (statute of limitations for a child's malpractice claim runs from date of birth when claim could not be asserted earlier)
- Goldsmith v. Howmedica, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 120 (medical malpractice accrual rule runs from time of alleged malpractice absent legislative change)
- Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Nelson, 67 N.Y.2d 169 (definition of accrual: when facts necessary for cause of action have occurred)
- Flanagan v. Mount Eden Gen. Hosp., 24 N.Y.2d 427 (foreign‑object exception to accrual rule)
- Massie v. Crawford, 78 N.Y.2d 516 (recognition that CPLR 214‑a establishes malpractice accrual at time of malpractice in typical cases)