## Facts

- Christina Strasel sought prenatal care at Seven Hills in December 2001, with obesity, irregular cycles, and uncertain dating.
- A December 27 ultrasound showed a gestational sac without fetal pole or heartbeat; visualization was limited due to obesity, and follow-up imaging was recommended.
- Dr. Xavier Ortiz reviewed the ultrasound materials, knew of the limited visualization and dating uncertainty, and knew follow-up testing was recommended.
- Ortiz did not personally examine Strasel and did not order confirmatory testing (e.g., repeat ultrasound or laboratory testing).
- Ortiz diagnosed a blighted ovum and scheduled a dilation and curettage (D&C) for the next morning, telling Strasel and her husband he was confident and that delay could endanger her health.
- The D&C was performed on what was later determined to be a viable pregnancy.
- Weeks later, Strasel returned with symptoms; testing showed an ongoing pregnancy of approximately 13 weeks.
- Ortiz informed Strasel of the misdiagnosis and that the D&C might have caused unknown fetal harm; Strasel experienced sustained fear of severe fetal injury throughout the pregnancy.
- Strasel was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder attributed to the event and subsequent uncertainty.
- The child was born healthy, but Strasel continued to fear latent or future harm.
- After arbitration and trial, a jury awarded Strasel $372,000; the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and denied Strasel’s motion for prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether a mother who delivers a healthy child may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on fear for the fetus when the defendant’s negligence placed the fetus in real danger.
2. Whether the evidence supported findings of breach, proximate cause, and serious emotional distress sufficient to sustain the verdict and damages.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying prejudgment interest for lack of a demonstrated failure to make a good-faith settlement effort.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Strasel, holding that recovery for NIED is permitted despite a healthy birth when negligence placed the fetus in real danger and the mother proved serious emotional distress.
- The court held the record supported the jury’s findings on negligence, causation, and compensable emotional injury, and the damages award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s assessment of settlement conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from fear for another’s safety where the negligence placed that person in real, objectively verifiable danger, even if the feared physical harm did not occur.
- In the prenatal-care context, a mother’s NIED claim may proceed despite a healthy birth if the negligence subjected the fetus to non-speculative risk and the mother proves serious emotional distress.
- “Serious emotional distress” requires more than transient anxiety and may be shown by medical diagnosis and evidence of substantial, lasting impairment.
- A medical malpractice verdict may be sustained where expert testimony supports a deviation from the standard of care and proximate causation linking that breach to the risk-creating event and resulting emotional injury.
- Prejudgment interest is discretionary where the statute turns on good-faith settlement efforts; an appellate court will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a malpractice/NIED verdict where a misdiagnosis led to a D&C on a viable pregnancy, concluding that a healthy birth does not bar recovery when negligence placed the fetus in real danger and the mother suffered medically documented, serious emotional distress; it also upheld denial of prejudgment interest based on the trial court’s settlement-related findings.


Strasel v. Seven Hills Ob-Gyn Assocs., Inc., 866 N.E.2d 48 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)