Thursday, December 3, 2015

Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo case brief

Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo case brief
1984
Facts: Doctors did a test for measles, and test disclosed German measles that were interpreted to be a past case of German measles so she is now immune. In fact, the tests disclosed that she had German measles, not that it was in the past. Kid sues for damages due to pain and suffering plus parent’s impaired capacity to cope with his problems. Then kid moved to amend his complaint to include all expenses that he will have for when he becomes an adult such as all health care services. Motion denied. 
Decision: 
Reasoning: Gleitman, a previous case, had similar facts. The court weighed value of life with impairments against nonexistence of life itself and declared that a logical impossibility. Could not compare the two. This case was overruled to a point, by allowing someone to recover the cost of parents emotional suffering. However, medical expenses were not allowed because that cost would be disproportionate of the defendants negligence. Also did not want to talk about value of life vs. no life. 
Wrongful life case determination. Many courts had trouble accepting that a life with defects was better than no life at all. Having said that, they found it impossible to assign a dollar amount to that value. However, there was a recognition recently that medical expenses on behalf of a birth defective child are predictable certain and recoverable. Hold that a child or parents may recover for special damages for extraordinary medical expenses incurred during infancy and that infant may recover those expenses during his majority. Medical expenses are a need of the living and make sense to be recovered for however general damages for pain and suffering plus the value of the unborn child vs a born child cannot be determined. Judicial system probably cannot handle the value of life vs. no life because of nature and value of life plus fear of non-existence. Impaired childhood is also not a good claim because its hard to divide that from kids injury

Holding: A child or his parents may recover for special damages for medical expenses incurred during infancy and that infant can recover those expenses during his majority since it is a need of the living, however a claim for wrongful life cannot be maintained because a life even with defects is better than no life at all. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.