## Facts

- During Rosemarie Procanik’s first trimester, she consulted defendant physicians after being diagnosed with “measles” and underwent serologic testing.
- The physicians negligently misinterpreted results indicating a recent rubella infection, advised she had childhood immunity, and failed to diagnose rubella during pregnancy.
- The pregnancy continued without an informed opportunity to consider termination based on rubella-related fetal risks.
- Peter Procanik was born with congenital rubella syndrome, including serious heart, eye, and auditory defects.
- The complaint asserted that proper diagnosis would have led the parents to terminate the pregnancy and avoid the birth of a severely impaired child.
- Plaintiffs filed: (1) the infant’s wrongful life claim seeking general and special damages; (2) the parents’ wrongful birth claim seeking emotional distress and extraordinary-care expenses; and (3) a legal malpractice claim against prior attorneys.
- The trial court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim; the Appellate Division affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review focused on dismissal of the infant’s wrongful life claim.

## Issues

1. Whether an infant may recover general damages in a wrongful life action for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or an “impaired childhood,” based on the theory that absent negligence the child would not have been born.
2. Whether an infant may recover special damages for extraordinary medical and related expenses attributable to congenital impairments caused by negligent prenatal diagnosis.
3. Whether the parents’ independent claims, including emotional distress, could proceed or be treated as derivative to avoid a statute of limitations bar.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held the infant could not recover general damages for wrongful life (pain and suffering, emotional distress, impaired childhood).
- It held the infant could recover special damages for extraordinary medical, nursing, and health-care expenses attributable to his condition.
- It held the parents’ separate emotional distress claim was time-barred and could not be revived by characterizing it as derivative of the infant’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Wrongful life claims do not support general damages because the law lacks a rational method to compare an impaired life with nonexistence for valuation purposes.
- A child may recover special damages for extraordinary medical and related expenses that are measurable and directly attributable to negligent prenatal diagnosis.
- Recognizing special damages for extraordinary expenses advances compensation and deterrence while avoiding valuation of life versus nonexistence.
- A time-barred parental claim for emotional distress is not revived by labeling it derivative of the child’s timely claim.

## Conclusion

The court limited wrongful life recovery to quantifiable extraordinary medical and related expenses while rejecting general damages that would require valuing existence against nonexistence, and it enforced the statute of limitations against the parents’ independent emotional distress claim.


Procanik ex rel. Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755 (1984)