Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1984 · Torts

478 A.2d 755 (1984)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortswrongful lifewrongful birthmedical malpracticedamagesspecial damagesextraordinary medical expensesgeneral damages

Facts

During the first trimester of pregnancy, Rosemary Procanik told Dr. Cillo she had recently been diagnosed with measles and was unsure whether it was German measles. Dr. Cillo ordered a rubella titer test, negligently interpreted the result as showing childhood immunity, and failed to order further tests, even though the result actually reflected the recent rubella infection. Mrs. Procanik allegedly continued the pregnancy because defendants deprived her and her husband of the choice to terminate it, and Peter was later born with congenital rubella syndrome, including eye, heart, and auditory defects. Peter sued for pain and suffering, impaired childhood, and extraordinary medical expenses, while his parents also sought emotional-distress and expense damages though they had filed after the two-year limitations period expired.

Issue

In a wrongful life action, may an infant born with congenital defects recover damages when the defendant doctors' negligence deprived the parents of the choice to terminate the pregnancy? If so, may the infant recover only extraordinary medical expenses or also general damages such as pain and suffering and impaired childhood, and can the parents' untimely claims be treated as derivative of the infant's timely action?

Rule

Where negligent medical treatment or advice deprives parents of the choice to terminate a pregnancy and a child is born with defects, the child may recover special damages for extraordinary medical, hospital, and other health-care expenses attributable to the affliction, including expenses during majority. The child may not recover general damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, impaired childhood, or diminished life because those damages require an irrational and speculative comparison between impaired existence and nonexistence. Parents' wrongful birth claims are independent direct claims, not derivative of the child's claim, and are barred if not timely brought under the ordinary statute of limitations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dr. Nora Baines negligently misread prenatal testing and failed to tell Dana and Luis Ortega that their fetus had a severe congenital condition. Had they been told, they would have terminated the pregnancy. Their son, Mateo, is born with the condition and, through a guardian, sues for future surgeries, specialized nursing care, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Which recovery is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority recognizes a limited wrongful life claim: the child may recover special damages for extraordinary medical, hospital, and related health-care expenses attributable to the affliction. But the child may not recover general damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, or diminished life, because those require an impermissibly speculative comparison between impaired existence and nonexistence. (Derived from Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo (1984).)