Phillips v. United States
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
575 F. Supp. 1309 (1983)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Dwight Phillips and Kathleen Phillips (plaintiffs) had a baby boy, Randy, who was born with Down syndrome. Dwight and Kathleen brought a wrongful-birth claim against the United States (defendant) alleging that the staff of the Naval Regional Medical Center (NRMC) had failed to advise them of the risk that a child born to Dwight and Kathleen would have Down syndrome and failed to test them to assess the risk of Down syndrome. The court found that the failure to provide genetic counseling and prenatal testing did not conform to applicable standards of medical care under the circumstances. At a court proceeding on the issue of damages, expert witnesses testified that Randy would require extensive care and supervision, special schooling, and lifelong assistance because of his condition. Kathleen testified that although she loved Randy, his condition was a source of heartache and upset for her because she knew he would not be able to do things that “normal” kids could do. Kathleen also testified that, as a result of Randy’s condition and the care he needed, she had given up all social activity, become nervous, and started overeating. Dwight also testified to feelings of anger, outrage, and disappointment, and noted that he suffered from gastrointestinal problems that required medication.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blatt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
