896 N.W.2d 393
Iowa2017Background
- Pamela and Jeremy Plowman sued prenatal-care providers after their son Z.P. was born with severe neurological disabilities; plaintiffs allege providers negligently misread/failed to follow up on a 22‑week ultrasound and failed to inform Pamela, depriving her of the option to terminate.
- The Plowmans do not allege the defendants caused Z.P.’s congenital condition; they allege negligent interpretation/communication of prenatal test results led to loss of an informed choice.
- District court granted defendants’ summary judgment, concluding Iowa did not recognize a wrongful‑birth cause of action; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court considered whether wrongful‑birth claims fit within traditional negligence principles, whether public policy or statutes bar the claim, and whether a father may assert such a claim.
- The Court reversed, holding wrongful‑birth claims are cognizable under Iowa law, the public policy/statutory arguments did not foreclose relief, and the father may sue; damages issues left to the trial court on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa recognizes wrongful‑birth claims | Wrongful birth is ordinary medical negligence (failure to detect/communicate fetal abnormality); parents lost the chance to terminate. | Wrongful birth is a new cause of action not recognized in Iowa; Nanke bars recovery for birth‑related claims. | Court: Recognizes wrongful‑birth as a negligence‑based claim consistent with common law; distinguishes Nanke (limited to healthy child). |
| Whether public policy or statutes bar wrongful‑birth recovery | Allowing claim enforces informed‑consent principles and compensates parents for extraordinary costs. | Recognition would stigmatize disabled persons, increase abortions, encourage defensive medicine, and invite fraud; rule 1.206/§613.15A limit parental recovery. | Court: Public policy and existing statutes do not bar claim; informed‑consent statutes and abortion regulation support recognizing the cause of action; rule 1.206 governs different injuries. |
| Whether a nonpatient father can sue | Father (Jeremy) shares the burdens of supporting a disabled child and was foreseeably harmed; duty can extend beyond privity. | No physician‑patient relationship with father; duty should not extend to third parties. | Court: Father may sue; duty analysis supports recovery given close familial relationship and foreseeability. |
| What damages are recoverable | Plaintiffs seek ordinary and extraordinary child‑rearing costs, loss of income, and emotional distress. | Defendants challenged availability of damages generally (procedurally not decided at summary judgment). | Court: Left damages for trial court to determine on remand; recognized recovery for extraordinary costs is typical in wrongful‑birth cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nanke v. Napier, 346 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa 1984) (refusing recovery for costs of raising a normal, healthy child after negligent abortion)
- Pauscher v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 408 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 1987) (patient’s right to informed consent; material information must be disclosed)
- Dier v. Peters, 815 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012) (three‑factor test for recognizing new causes of action: common‑law fit, policy, statutes)
- DeBurkarte v. Louvar, 393 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 1986) (allowing recovery for lost chance where negligent delayed diagnosis worsened a preexisting condition)
- Canesi ex rel. Canesi v. Wilson, 730 A.2d 805 (N.J. 1999) (analyzing wrongful‑birth proximate causation by analogy to informed‑consent principles)
- Lininger ex rel. Lininger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1988) (recognizing parental recovery for extraordinary expenses in wrongful‑birth cases)