## Facts

- Ronald and Connie Johnson previously had a child (born 1979) with hydrocephalus and severe disabilities who died at four months.
- Connie Johnson sought genetic counseling from Patricia Bader, M.D., during later pregnancies to assess fetal abnormalities.
- During Connie’s 1991 pregnancy, an amniocentesis at about 19.5 weeks indicated no abnormalities, but an ultrasound that day showed an enlarged brain cavity and unusual head shape.
- Dr. Bader directed staff to schedule follow-up testing, but an office error prevented scheduling and the abnormal ultrasound report was not forwarded to Connie’s treating physician.
- At 33 weeks, Connie’s treating physician discovered hydrocephalus; termination was no longer feasible.
- The child was born with hydrocephalus and multiple birth defects and died four months later.
- The Johnsons alleged that timely disclosure of the abnormal ultrasound would have led them to terminate the pregnancy.

## Issues

1. Whether parents may recover in tort when negligent prenatal counseling and nondisclosure of material test results deprive them of the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy.
2. Whether the claim should be recognized as a distinct “wrongful birth” tort or analyzed as a traditional medical malpractice action.
3. What damages are recoverable, including economic losses related to the pregnancy and child’s care and emotional-distress damages.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the healthcare providers and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court declined to recognize a freestanding tort of “wrongful birth,” holding the allegations stated a cognizable medical malpractice claim under traditional negligence principles.
- The Court held that a provider’s negligent failure to disclose material prenatal information may satisfy duty, breach, and causation by causing the loss of a meaningful opportunity to make a reproductive choice.
- The Court permitted pursuit of economic damages proximately caused by the nondisclosure but limited emotional-distress damages under Indiana’s modified impact rule, in practice largely to the physically impacted patient (the mother), if the rule’s requirements are met.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana does not create a separate “wrongful birth” cause of action; claims are analyzed as medical malpractice under ordinary tort elements.
- Physicians and related providers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in communicating material information relevant to a patient’s medical and reproductive decisions.
- Causation may be established where the alleged negligence does not cause the congenital condition but deprives parents of the timely opportunity to avoid the pregnancy-related burdens through termination.
- Public-policy objections are addressed by focusing the injury on negligent nondisclosure and its consequences, not on treating the child’s life as a compensable injury.
- Recoverable damages may include economic losses proximately caused by the negligence; emotional-distress recovery is constrained by Indiana’s modified impact rule.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the parents to proceed on a traditional medical malpractice theory for negligent nondisclosure of material prenatal findings that allegedly eliminated the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, while rejecting an independent wrongful-birth tort label and restricting emotional-distress damages.


Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2000)