## Facts

- Helen Schirmer had prior obstetrical problems and underwent genetic testing showing a balanced translocation of chromosomes 11 and 22, increasing the risk of serious fetal defects.
- During a later pregnancy, she underwent chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and multiple ultrasounds; the results were reported as indicating normal fetal development and a fetal chromosomal condition like the mother’s.
- Helen Schirmer gave birth to Matthew on September 9, 1997; subsequent testing showed he had Trisomy 22 and significant impairments.
- The parents alleged fetal testing was performed on their own tissue rather than fetal tissue and that they were deprived of information needed to decide whether to continue the pregnancy.
- They asserted medical negligence, failure to warn, and lack of informed consent against multiple healthcare providers involved in genetic testing, counseling, and prenatal monitoring.
- The parents sought (1) pregnancy-and-birth-related malpractice damages, (2) additional economic costs of caring for a disabled child beyond ordinary child-rearing expenses, and (3) noneconomic harms associated with the burden of caring for the disabled child.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio permits parents to sue under medical-malpractice principles for negligent genetic counseling or negligent failure to diagnose a fetal defect or disease (a wrongful-birth-type claim).
2. If such a claim is cognizable, whether recoverable damages include only pregnancy-and-birth-related costs or also consequential economic and noneconomic damages for caring for and rearing the impaired child.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that parents may bring a medical-malpractice action based on negligent genetic counseling or negligent failure to diagnose a fetal defect or disease.
- The Court limited recovery to costs arising from the pregnancy and birth of the child.
- The Court barred recovery of consequential economic and consequential noneconomic damages tied to the care and rearing of the child.
- The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals, rejecting the appellate allowance of extraordinary child-rearing expenses.

## Legal Principles

- A wrongful-birth-type claim may proceed as a traditional medical-malpractice action when negligence in genetic counseling or prenatal diagnosis deprives parents of information material to reproductive decision-making.
- Recoverable damages are limited to those arising from the pregnancy and birth.
- Consequential economic and noneconomic damages for the ongoing care and rearing of the impaired child are not recoverable.
- The limitation reflects a policy judgment that courts should not award damages requiring comparison of life with disability to nonexistence.

## Conclusion

Ohio recognizes a narrow medical-malpractice remedy for negligent genetic counseling or prenatal diagnostic failures that result in the birth of an impaired child, but confines damages to pregnancy-and-birth-related losses and excludes both economic and noneconomic costs associated with raising and caring for the child.


Schirmer v. Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecological Ass'n, Inc., 108 Ohio St. 3d 494, 844 N.E.2d 1160 (Ohio 2006)