OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches, P.A. v. Mejia
134 So. 3d 1084
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents sue OB/GYN Specialists and Dr. Morel for wrongful birth due to alleged negligence in prenatal care.
- Level II ultrasound (June 30, 2008) reportedly showed normal anatomy; later birth revealed severe limb defects.
- Plaintiffs claim timely disclosure could have enabled abortion; defendants argue Florida §390.0111 barred third-trimester abortions and limited causation.
- Trial court excluded evidence of Florida’s third-trimester abortion prohibition as applied to the Level II ultrasound and gestational timing.
- Evidence at trial showed gestational age around 24 weeks at the Level II ultrasound; plaintiffs argued Florida law affected causation.
- Jury returned verdict for plaintiffs; defendants appeal, contending error in excluding statute-based evidence and misapplication of timing under §390.0111.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §390.0111 is relevant to causation in wrongful birth. | Plaintiffs: statute relevant to whether abortion could have occurred; causation linked to missed opportunity. | Defendants: statute precludes Florida third-trimester abortions, affecting legal causation. | Statute relevant; error to exclude; new trial required |
| Whether 'third trimester' should be measured by gestational age or conception date for §390.0111(1). | Plaintiffs contend gestational age should be used. | Defendants contend conception-date measurement is required. | Gestational-age interpretation governs; statutory meaning applied |
| Whether evidence that abortion could occur in other states should be excluded as irrelevant to Florida law. | Plaintiffs rely on availability of external jurisdictions to show potential causation. | Defendants argue such evidence misleads and is irrelevant to Florida law. | Not a basis to exclude altogether; new trial on liability/causation warranted |
| Did trial court abuse its discretion by excluding Florida’s abortion statute from jury consideration? | Exclusion deprived jury of a theory under Florida law relevant to causation. | Exclusion prevented trial-within-a-trial and confusion; not abuse. | No absolute abuse; however, overall error requires new trial on liability/causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla.1992) (wrongful birth damages and causation framework)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) ( trimester framework and viability context)
- City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1983) ( trimester viability discussion; gestational measurements)
- Hall v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, 899 A.2d 240 (N.H. 2006) (timeliness/availability considerations in wrongful birth causation)
- Pendergraft v. Dep’t of Health, 19 So.3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (discipline for miscalculation; gestational measurement context)
- Ticktin v. Department of Professional Regulation, 532 So.2d 47 (Fla.1st DCA 1988) (gestational-age calculation in regulatory context)