## Facts

- Amy and Jeff Clark sought genetic testing and counseling after their first child showed developmental delays, to assess the risk of having another affected child.
- Subsequent genetic testing reportedly identified that the first child’s Angelman syndrome was caused by a UBE3A gene mutation associated with a substantial recurrence risk.
- The Clarks alleged that a geneticist at a hospital negligently failed to inform them of the mutation and its recurrence implications.
- Relying on the information they received, the Clarks conceived a second child, Timothy, who was later diagnosed with Angelman syndrome.
- The Clarks alleged they would not have conceived Timothy had they been told the accurate genetic-risk information.
- The Clarks sought damages including extraordinary medical and supportive-care expenses and emotional distress.

## Issues

1. In a wrongful-birth action, may parents recover extraordinary expenses of caring for a disabled child after the child reaches the age of majority?
2. Does Illinois’ zone-of-danger test bar recovery for parents’ emotional distress when emotional distress is sought in connection with a wrongful-birth claim?
3. Under the medical-malpractice discovery rule, were the claims time-barred as a matter of law based on when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury and its wrongful cause?

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It held parents may not recover post-majority extraordinary care expenses in a wrongful-birth action.
- It held emotional distress is recoverable without satisfying the zone-of-danger test when sought as an element of damages tied to another tort (here, wrongful birth).
- It held limitations accrual presented factual disputes and could not be resolved on the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Wrongful-birth damages aim to place parents in the position they would have occupied absent negligent counseling (i.e., had they avoided conception or terminated the pregnancy).
- In Illinois wrongful-birth actions, parents’ recoverable extraordinary expenses are limited to those incurred during the child’s minority; post-majority costs are treated as belonging to the adult child, and expanding recovery would functionally approximate a barred wrongful-life claim.
- The zone-of-danger test governs cases where emotional distress is the entire injury; it does not apply when emotional distress is only an element of damages for another actionable tort.
- Under the discovery rule, accrual depends on when a plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and that it may have been wrongfully caused; disputed facts on that question preclude dismissal on limitations grounds at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court confined wrongful-birth damages to extraordinary care costs incurred before the child reaches majority, allowed parents to pursue emotional distress damages without meeting the zone-of-danger test when tied to wrongful birth, and remanded because the limitations accrual date could not be resolved as a matter of law.


Clark v. Children's Mem'l Hosp., 955 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2011)