## Facts

- Diane Lloyd’s first child (born 1976) had severe deformities; the family sought genetic evaluation to determine heredity risk.
- Genetic testing was coordinated through physicians, including Dr. Pedro Diaz and Dr. Arthur Maislen.
- Dr. Maislen reported that no genetic abnormalities were found, but a key fluorescent banding study remained incomplete; he indicated he would report any abnormality when final results became available.
- Dr. Maislen was later replaced; for unknown reasons, the fluorescent banding study results were never transmitted to Dr. Diaz.
- Based on incomplete information, Dr. Diaz advised the Lloyds the condition was not genetic and that they could have another child without similar impairment.
- The Lloyds later changed pediatricians and began treating with Dr. Arthur W. Kush.
- In 1983, the Lloyds’ second son, Brandon, was born with the same genetic abnormality and severe impairments; later testing showed Diane Lloyd carried a 10p trisomy passed to both children.
- In 1985, the Lloyds sued medical providers for wrongful birth and related damages, alleging negligent genetic testing/counseling deprived them of informed reproductive choice and led to the birth of a second impaired child.

## Issues

1. For a wrongful birth claim based on negligent failure to diagnose an inheritable genetic impairment, does Florida’s medical malpractice statute of repose bar the action when the child is born more than four years after the negligent diagnosis/counseling?
2. May parents recover emotional distress damages in a wrongful birth action without satisfying Florida’s “impact rule”?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court approved the district court’s reversal of dismissal/summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held the wrongful birth cause of action arises when birth occurs or is imminent; the four-year medical malpractice statute of repose does not extinguish the claim merely because the negligent diagnosis occurred more than four years earlier.
- The court held emotional distress damages are recoverable in wrongful birth without physical impact because such distress is a direct component of the injury in this type of claim.
- The court answered the certified question in the negative and disapproved contrary reasoning in Moores v. Lucas to the extent inconsistent.

## Legal Principles

- In wrongful birth medical malpractice claims predicated on negligent genetic counseling/diagnosis, the legally cognizable injury is the birth (or impending birth) of the impaired child; accrual is tied to that event rather than the earlier misdiagnosis alone.
- Florida’s medical malpractice statute of repose cannot be applied to bar a wrongful birth claim before a legally recognizable injury occurs.
- Wrongful birth is a recognized medical malpractice cause of action grounded in deprivation of parents’ informed reproductive choice.
- Emotional distress damages in wrongful birth are recoverable without satisfying the impact rule because mental anguish flows directly from the tort and is treated as part of the damages arising from the personal wrong.
- Recoverable damages may include extraordinary costs associated with the child’s impairments and parents’ mental anguish attributable to the wrongful birth.

## Conclusion

The court held that a wrongful birth claim based on negligent genetic testing and counseling is not barred by the medical malpractice statute of repose when the child is born more than four years after the negligence, because the claim arises at or near birth, and it further allowed parents to seek emotional distress damages without showing physical impact.


Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992)