## Facts

- Heather L. Seslar requested a sterilization procedure.
- On March 26, 1998, Kenneth R. Chaffee, M.D., performed an abdominal bilateral partial salpingectomy intended to render Seslar sterile.
- Seslar later became pregnant and, on August 5, 1999, gave birth to a normal, healthy child.
- Seslar filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, alleging negligence and breach of contract based on the unsuccessful sterilization.
- Seslar sought damages including future costs of raising the child, including medical and educational costs.
- Before a medical review panel opinion issued, Chaffee sought a preliminary determination that child-rearing expenses are not recoverable as a matter of law in a negligent sterilization malpractice action.
- The trial court denied the motion, allowed Seslar to pursue child-rearing damages, and certified the order for interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a medical malpractice action alleging negligent sterilization resulting in the birth of a normal, healthy child, the plaintiff may recover the costs of raising the child as damages.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s interlocutory order.
- The court held that child-rearing expenses for a normal, healthy child may be recoverable in a negligent sterilization malpractice action.
- Recovery depends on proof of ordinary negligence elements, including proximate cause and a compensable injury.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana medical malpractice claims function as ordinary negligence actions requiring duty, breach, and a compensable injury proximately caused by the breach.
- Tort damages generally include losses that naturally flow from a proven breach, subject to proximate cause and foreseeability limits.
- If a negligently performed sterilization foreseeably results in an unwanted pregnancy and birth, child-rearing expenses can constitute economic harm flowing from the breach.
- Policy objections (e.g., treating a child as a “harm,” difficulty estimating future costs, risk of large awards, or possible emotional effects on the child) do not justify categorically excluding child-rearing expenses when standard damages limits and malpractice caps remain available.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a negligent sterilization plaintiff to seek recovery of the economic costs of raising a normal, healthy child, reasoning that malpractice damages follow ordinary negligence rules and may include foreseeable losses proximately caused by the physician’s breach.


Chaffee v. Seslar, 751 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)