Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortdefendantdamagesmotioncommon law
tortplaintiffdamagesliabilitywill

Related Cases

Ott v. Washington Gas Light Co., 205 F.Supp. 815
View Case »
Katamay v. Chicago Transit Authority, 53 Ill.2d 27, 289 N.E.2d 623
View Case »
Packer v. Riverbend Communications, LLC, 167 Idaho 205, 468 P.3d 1283
View Case »
Bustamante v. Ponte, 529 S.W.3d 447, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 11
View Case »
Borg & Powers Furniture Co. v. Reiling, 213 Minn. 539, 7 N.W.2d 310
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hosp., 2011 IL 108656, 955 N.E.2d 1065, 353 Ill.Dec. 254

Facts

Amy and Jeff Clark filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Children's Memorial Hospital and Dr. Barbara Burton, after their son Timothy was born with Angelman Syndrome. They alleged that the defendants failed to inform them of genetic test results indicating that their older son, Brandon, had the syndrome due to a genetic mutation, which would have influenced their decision to conceive Timothy. After a series of miscommunications and incorrect information from the doctors, they conceived Timothy, who was later diagnosed with the same condition as Brandon.

Their amended complaint alleged that Burton negligently failed to inform plaintiffs of test results revealing that their first son, Brandon, suffered from Angelman Syndrome due to a UBE3A genetic mutation, and that they would not have conceived Timothy had she provided them with accurate information regarding the risk of giving birth to another child with the same condition.

Issue

Whether the parents could recover damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for their disabled child after he reaches the age of majority and whether they could claim damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Whether the parents may recover damages for the extraordinary expenses of caring for the disabled child after he reaches the age of majority.

Rule

Parents may recover damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for a disabled child during their minority, but the question of post-majority expenses hinges on whether parents have a legal obligation to support a disabled adult child.

The circuit court ruled that while the plaintiff parents in a wrongful-birth action may recover damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for their child during his minority, they may not recover damages for such costs after he reaches the age of majority.

Analysis

The court analyzed the common law and statutory obligations of parents regarding the support of adult children, concluding that while parents generally do not have a legal obligation to support adult children, exceptions exist for disabled children under certain circumstances. The appellate court's ruling that parents could recover damages for post-majority care was based on the premise that the tortfeasor should bear the costs associated with the child's disability.

The appellate court recognized this requirement, noting that for parents to recover from a tortfeasor for their child's medical expenses, 'they must be legally liable for the charges, and the basis for such liability must exist prior to the creation of the charges and not arise due to a voluntary assumption of financial responsibility after the fact.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision in part, allowing for the recovery of damages related to post-majority care, while also reversing the dismissal of claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The appellate court reversed, holding that postmajority expenses are recoverable damages that compensate parents for the 'costs they will incur for caring for their disabled child.'

Who won?

The Clarks prevailed in part, as the court allowed them to recover damages for post-majority care, recognizing the ongoing financial responsibilities they would face due to their child's condition.

The appellate court held that plaintiff parents in a wrongful-birth case may recover damages for the cost of caring for their dependent, disabled, adult child.

You must be