Ouellette v. Subak

Julie Ouellette suspected she was pregnant in February, and on March 11, family practitioner Dr. Barbara Subak (defendant) calculated her due date as October 12. Dr. Subak and Dr. Maxine Nelson (defendant) performed several examinations throughout Julie’s pregnancy. However, none of the markers of a typical pregnancy aligned with the due date that Dr. Subak calculated. On November 30, Dr. Subak consulted with obstetrician Dr. John T. Moehn, who recommended terminating the pregnancy. The next morning, Dr. Mitchell Pincus delivered Kristian Ouellette (plaintiff) via Caesarean section. Kristian was born with brain damage and permanent, severely diminished physical and mental capacity. When Kristian was six years old, he only had the functional development of between six and 13 months. The Ouellettes sued Dr. Subak and Dr. Nelson for negligence in permitting a prolonged pregnancy, failing to timely induce labor, and ignoring signs of fetal distress. The doctors argued that they did not err in diagnosing or treating Julie’s pregnancy, but if they did err, it was not negligence but rather an honest error in professional judgment, and that any alleged negligence did not cause Kristian’s condition. The trial court refused to give the doctors’ requested jury instructions that doctors are not responsible for an honest error in judgment. A jury by special verdict found the doctors negligent. The doctors appealed, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Ouellettes appealed the reversal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, claiming that the trial court correctly refused to give the instruction on honest error in judgment.