## Facts

- Millicent Kassama received prenatal care from Dr. Aaron H. Magat during her pregnancy.
- Kassama underwent maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) screening, which indicated an elevated risk of fetal chromosomal abnormality, including Down syndrome.
- Kassama alleged the physicians failed to adequately communicate the abnormal AFP results and failed to discuss available diagnostic testing (including amniocentesis) that could confirm or rule out Down syndrome.
- Kassama asserted that, with proper information and testing, she would have terminated the pregnancy if Down syndrome were confirmed.
- In 1995, Kassama delivered Ibrion Fatuo Kassama, who was born with Down syndrome.
- Kassama sued for “wrongful birth” (as the parent) seeking damages associated with raising a child with a genetic disability, and sued on the child’s behalf for “wrongful life,” claiming the child was harmed by being born with the condition.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland recognizes a cause of action for “wrongful life” by a child alleging that, absent medical negligence, the child would not have been born.
2. Whether the mother could recover on a wrongful-birth theory based on negligent prenatal counseling/testing where she alleged she would have terminated the pregnancy with proper information.
3. Whether the mother’s contributory negligence, if found to be a proximate cause of her claimed injury, bars recovery on the wrongful-birth claim under Maryland law.
4. Whether the mother and child could proceed on separate informed-consent theories in addition to, or instead of, negligence-based malpractice principles.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the dismissal of the child’s wrongful-life claim, holding Maryland does not recognize wrongful life as a cognizable tort.
- The court left intact the trial outcome on the mother’s wrongful-birth negligence claim because the jury found the mother contributorily negligent and that negligence was a proximate cause of her injury, which bars recovery in Maryland.
- The court upheld the disposition removing separate informed-consent claims from the case (the child’s by partial summary judgment and the mother’s by judgment for defendants at trial), limiting the matter to traditional malpractice and wrongful-birth analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful life by a child born with a genetic defect based on the theory that nonexistence is preferable to life with impairment.
- Tort damages generally require comparing the plaintiff’s actual condition to a non-negligence alternative; courts will not treat the comparison between impaired life and nonexistence as a measurable, legally cognizable injury for the child.
- Maryland recognizes a parent’s wrongful-birth claim in limited circumstances where medical negligence deprives the parent of information needed to decide whether to continue a pregnancy in light of a risk of serious fetal defect.
- Maryland applies pure contributory negligence: if the plaintiff’s negligence proximately contributes to the claimed injury, recovery is completely barred, including in wrongful-birth malpractice litigation.
- Informed-consent theories do not expand to create wrongful-life liability and may be constrained where the gravamen of the dispute is negligent prenatal testing/counseling addressed by malpractice principles.

## Conclusion

Maryland refused to create wrongful-life liability for a child alleging harm from being born with a genetic condition, while confirming that parental wrongful-birth claims may exist but remain subject to ordinary tort defenses; because the jury found the mother contributorily negligent, she could not recover despite evidence of physician negligence.


Kassama v. Magat, 792 A.2d 1102 (Md. 2002)