Hoover v. N.D. Department of Transportation
2010 ND 234
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs sue for medical malpractice alleging prenatal care failed to detect Trisomy 21, leading to a wrongful birth and birth with Down syndrome.
- B.D.H. is the child; plaintiffs seek damages on the child’s and parents’ behalf for the alleged wrongful life and wrongful birth.
- District court granted summary judgment that (a) wrongful life barred by N.D.C.C. § 32-03-43 and (b) wrongful birth claims not recognized or time-barred.
- Claim accrual followed standard malpractice rule: accrual at notice, commencement by service, and the two-year statute of limitations apply.
- Filing occurred May 5, 2009; birth occurred April 12, 2007; the action was not commenced within two years absent tolling.
- Court affirms summary judgment and rejects both wrongful life and wrongful birth theories under North Dakota law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrongful life is barred by § 32-03-43. | B.D.H. may sue for wrongful life on his own behalf. | § 32-03-43 bars wrongful life claims and actions brought by the child. | Barred by plain text of § 32-03-43. |
| Whether parents may pursue a wrongful birth claim in North Dakota. | Parents may recover for wrongful birth under ND law. | ND does not recognize wrongful birth; or claims time-barred. | Not recognized; or barred by statute of limitations. |
| Whether the two-year statute of limitations bars a wrongful birth claim. | Two-year limit tolling may apply due to infancy; discovery rule may extend. | Service commenced after two years; no tolling. | Barred by two-year malpractice statute of limitations. |
| Whether tolling under § 28-01-25 applies to parents’ wrongful birth claim. | Infancy tolling could extend time; § 28-01-25 applies. | Inapplicable because parents sue on behalf of themselves, not for a minor; § 28-01-25 not t o ll ing. | Not applicable to parents’ wrongful birth claim. |
| Is the accrual rule for malpractice claims satisfied given service dates? | Discovery or accrual could occur earlier. | Accrual at notice; service commenced after two years. | Action commenced after two years; barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. State ex rel. Tax Comm’r, 704 N.W.2d 8 (2005 ND) (statutory interpretation principles applied in ND)
- Wheeler v. Gardner, 708 N.W.2d 908 (2006 ND) (summary judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)
- Tibert v. Slominski, 692 N.W.2d 133 (2005 ND) (statutory interpretation; summary judgment context)
- Larson v. Norkot Mfg, Inc., 627 N.W.2d 386 (2001 ND) (accrual of malpractice claims; notice rule)