Pamela Plowman and Jeremy Plowman v. Fort Madison Community Hospital, Pil Kang, John Paiva, Davis Radiology, P.C., Leah Steffensmeier, the Women's Center, and Fort Madison Physicians and Surgeons
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 62
| Iowa | 2017Background
- 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)