Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC
Oregon Supreme Court
412 P.3d 133 (2018)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Kerry Tomlinson (plaintiff) and Scott Tomlinson (plaintiff) had a son, M, who was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a genetic disorder. Prior to learning of M’s diagnosis, Kerry and Scott had another son, T (plaintiff), who was also diagnosed with DMD. Kerry and Scott sued Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC (Metropolitan) (defendant), alleging that M’s doctors had failed to timely diagnose M’s genetic disorder and had negligently failed to inform Kerry and Scott of M’s diagnosis. Kerry and Scott further alleged that, had they been timely informed of M’s diagnosis, they would have refrained from conceiving T, another child suffering from the disorder. Kerry and Scott sought damages for their own emotional distress. T, through Kerry and Scott, asserted a claim for mental distress due to being born with DMD. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal as to T’s claim for damages. The appellate court reasoned that T’s claim was for wrongful birth, a cause of action not recognized in Oregon. T appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the court of appeals had erred by interpreting his claim as a wrongful-birth claim. Instead, T argued, the court should have awarded damages based on a comparison between his impaired life and a nonimpaired life.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brewer, J.)
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.
