01-1021 Flint v. O'Connell, M.D.

Listen to this article

“Therefore, we conclude that Rieck [v. Medical Protective Co., 64 Wis.2d 514 (1974)] controls the public policy analysis of the damages associated with the costs of raising a healthy child to the age of majority because Flint had only an interest in an ability to choose to abort her pregnancy. The potential size of such a damage award, when tied to a hypothetical desire to abort an already on-going pregnancy, comes squarely within Rieck’s concern that parents in similar circumstances would be tempted either to invent an intent to prevent pregnancy or at least to deny any possibility of a change of mind or attitude about continuation of the pregnancy when pregnancy was discovered….

“However, in regard to Flint’s claims that O’Connell’s failure to diagnose resulted in exacerbation of her chronic illness [Lupus] and associated consequences [including kidney failure and a subsequent transplant], we reverse the circuit court prior to a full public policy analysis of the remaining damages that were alleged and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Albert, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Donald J. Jacquart, Milwaukee; David P. Lowe, Milwaukee; Paul Jacquart, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Charles D. Hoornstra, Madison; James E. McCambridge, Madison