## Facts

- After the birth of their third child, Patrick and Jeanne Heimann decided they did not want any more children and chose vasectomy as their method of contraception.
- Patrick Heimann underwent a vasectomy at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center (also known as University Hospital), where the procedure was performed by a physician employed by the hospital.
- The vasectomy was unsuccessful, and Jeanne Heimann became pregnant.
- On October 4, 1981, Jeanne gave birth to a baby girl who was normal and healthy.
- The Heimanns filed a medical malpractice action against the hospital (and the physician), alleging negligence in performing the vasectomy.
- The Heimanns alleged they were financially unable to provide for themselves, their three existing children, and the unplanned fourth child, and sought damages for pregnancy, birth, and the costs of raising and educating the child.
- The hospital moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that, even if negligence were proven, damages could not include the future costs of raising and educating a normal, healthy child.
- The trial court denied the hospital’s motion.
- The hospital filed a special-action petition asking the Arizona Supreme Court to intervene and direct the trial court to grant partial summary judgment limiting damages.

## Issues

1. In a wrongful pregnancy action based on a negligently performed vasectomy that results in the birth of a normal, healthy child, may the parents recover the future costs of raising and educating the child?

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special-action jurisdiction because the damages question was a matter of first impression in Arizona, presented a pure issue of law, and implicated important public interest; addressing it immediately would also avoid cost and delay if a retrial later became necessary.
- The Court stressed that negligence and liability were not before it; it assumed negligence might later be proven and addressed only the proper measure of damages.
- The Court held that parents may not recover the ordinary future costs of raising and educating a normal, healthy child born as the result of a negligently performed sterilization procedure.
- The Court recognized that other damages proximately caused by the negligent procedure may be recoverable (including pregnancy- and birth-related losses), but ruled that child-rearing and education expenses for a healthy child are not a compensable item of damage.
- The Court granted relief in the special action and directed the trial court to grant partial summary judgment limiting damages consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A “wrongful pregnancy” claim arising from negligent sterilization is treated as an ordinary negligence/medical malpractice action in which the dispute may focus on the allowable categories of damages rather than on duty or breach.
- When a special action presents a pure legal question of statewide importance, the Arizona Supreme Court may exercise discretionary jurisdiction to correct an error in the trial court’s ruling on a matter of law.
- In wrongful pregnancy cases involving the birth of a normal, healthy child, Arizona does not permit recovery of the ordinary future costs of raising and educating the child, because the law will not treat the existence of a healthy child as a compensable injury measured by routine child-support obligations.
- Public policy and the difficulty of valuing the intangible benefits of parenthood against economic costs support limiting damages to those directly associated with the failed procedure and the resulting pregnancy and delivery, rather than shifting long-term child-rearing expenses to the defendant.
- The ruling limits damages as a matter of law while leaving the underlying malpractice case intact for trial on negligence and on other recoverable harms proximately caused by the alleged negligence.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that, although parents may seek traditional damages tied to a negligently performed vasectomy and the resulting pregnancy and childbirth, they may not recover the ordinary future costs of raising and educating a normal, healthy child; the trial court was ordered to grant partial summary judgment barring those child-rearing damages.


University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court, 667 P. 2d 1294 (1983)