Penniman v. Univ. Hosps. Health Sys., Inc.
130 N.E.3d 333
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2019Background
- In March 2018 a freezer malfunction at University Hospitals allegedly destroyed cryopreserved embryos owned by Wendy and Rick Penniman.
- The Pennimans filed two actions in Cuyahoga County: a damages action and a declaratory-judgment action seeking a declaration that life begins at conception and that embryos are "persons."
- The trial court consolidated the cases, then granted UHHS's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the declaratory-judgment complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The Pennimans appealed, arguing Ohio law recognizes embryos (from fertilization) as "persons" permitting wrongful-death or similar claims.
- The trial court and majority held existing Ohio statutes and precedent limit personhood to viable unborn humans (capable of independent life outside the womb), and do not confer personhood or wrongful-death protection on pre-implantation frozen embryos.
- The majority affirmed dismissal; a dissent argued dismissal was premature because the criminal-definition statutes relied on are inapplicable to civil declaratory relief and the novel issue deserved full litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-implantation frozen embryos are "persons" under Ohio law | Penniman: R.C. 2919.19 defines "unborn human individual" from fertilization to birth, so embryos are persons from conception | UHHS: Ohio defines a "person" to include only a viable unborn human; embryos are nonviable and not persons | Held: Embryos not implanted in uterus are not "distinct human entit[ies]" and are not persons under Ohio law |
| Whether statutory definitions conflict/ambiguate personhood | Penniman: Broad terms like "individual" could reasonably include embryos | UHHS: Statutes consistently limit criminal/person definitions to viable unborn; legislature has not conferred rights to embryos | Held: No conflict or ambiguity; statutes and precedent reserve personhood to viable unborn humans |
| Whether the complaint stated a justiciable controversy suitable for declaratory relief | Penniman: Novel legal question merits judicial declaration to permit wrongful-death claim | UHHS: No cause of action exists because embryos lack personhood; dismissal proper | Held: No genuine dispute over legal status as matter of law; dismissal appropriate because complaint failed to state a claim |
| Whether viability should be assessed at time embryos were frozen (per physicians) | Penniman: Doctors deemed certain embryos "viable" when freezing, so viability at time of injury supports personhood | UHHS: Viability in law means capacity to survive outside womb; frozen embryos do not meet that standard | Held: Court rejects redefinition of viability; viability requires realistic possibility of survival ex utero, which embryos lack |
Key Cases Cited
- Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St.3d 45 (Ohio 1985) (viability test: unborn fetus may be a "person" for wrongful-death if viable at time of injury)
- Williams v. Marion Rapid Transit, 152 Ohio St. 114 (Ohio 1949) (unborn viable child may maintain action for prenatal injury after birth)
- Jasinsky v. Potts, 153 Ohio St. 529 (Ohio 1950) (viable infant who survives birth is a "person" under wrongful-death statute)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (Ohio 2006) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R. 12[B][6])
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (standard that dismissal should be granted only when no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)