Perry-Rogers v. Obasaju
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
282 A.D.2d 231, 723 N.Y.S.2d 28 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Deborah Perry-Rogers and Robert Rogers (plaintiffs) underwent in vitro fertilization with Dr. Michael Obasaju (defendant) at the In Vitro Fertility Center of New York (IVFC) (defendant). One of the Rogerses’ fertilized embryos was mistakenly implanted into a third party, who then became pregnant, gave birth, and raised the Rogerses’ child for the first four months of the child’s life. The Rogerses were not informed about the error until after the third party became pregnant. The Rogerses ultimately regained custody of their child following a custody proceeding. The Rogerses then filed a medical-malpractice action against Obasaju and IVFC, arguing that Obasaju and IVFC’s negligence had caused the Rogerses emotional harm. Specifically, the Rogerses sought damages for the emotional harm caused by being deprived of the chance to experience the pregnancy and birth of their child and for being deprived of the opportunity to raise their child for the first four months of the child’s life. The Rogerses submitted medical affidavits describing the objective manifestations of their emotional distress. Obasaju and IVFC moved to dismiss, arguing that the Rogerses could not recover damages for purely emotional harm. The trial court denied Obasaju and IVFC’s motion to dismiss. Obasaju and IVFC appealed to the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. The New York Supreme Court is the name of New York’s trial-level courts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.