AARON LYNCH et al. v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT et al., SC 20646

Judicial District of Hartford

      Medical Malpractice; Sovereign Immunity; Whether Claims Commissioner's Authorization to Sue the State Covered Plaintiffs' Claims; Whether "Wrongful Life" Claim Should Be Recognized in Connecticut.  After obtaining permission from the Claims Commissioner to sue the state of Connecticut (state) for medical malpractice pursuant to General Statutes § 4-160, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch brought this action against the state on their own behalf and on behalf of their son, Joshua, and the estate of their deceased daughter, Shay.  They alleged that Jean-Marie became pregnant with Joshua and Shay, who were twins, after the state's hospital performed an intra-uterine insemination (IUI) procedure using sperm from a donor positive for cytomegalovirus (CMV) antibodies.  They further alleged that Shay died in utero and Joshua was born with debilitating, life-long medical conditions due to the resulting CMV infection.  They claimed, inter alia, that the state committed medical malpractice based upon (1) negligent fertility treatment in that the state did not obtain Jean-Marie's informed consent where it failed to inform her of the risks associated with infection by CMV in the IUI procedure and (2) negligent prenatal treatment in that the state should have been alerted to the possibility of CMV infections in the fetuses based on an ultrasound examination.  The trial court struck Joshua's negligent prenatal treatment claim, stating that it was a "wrongful life" claim that it declined to recognize.  The court, however, refused to strike the negligent fertility treatment claims brought on behalf of Joshua and Shay's estate, concluding that they were medical malpractice claims and not "wrongful life" claims.  After trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages in excess of $36 million.  The state appealed to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself.  On appeal, the state claims that the plaintiffs' action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  Specifically, it argues that the fertility treatment claims predicated on a lack of informed consent were outside the scope of the Claims Commissioner's permission to sue the state, which was limited to medical malpractice claims.  It also asserts that the plaintiffs never received permission to sue on their prenatal medical malpractice claims, as they failed to submit to the Claims Commissioner a good faith certificate and an opinion letter from a similar health care provider for those claims as required by § 4-160 (b).  In addition, the state claims that the negligent fertility treatment claims brought on behalf of Joshua and Shay's estate are, in fact, "wrongful life" claims and that a "wrongful life" claim should not be recognized in Connecticut because it does not allege any legally cognizable injury to the child and “demands a calculation of damages dependent upon a comparison between the Hobson's choice of life in an impaired state and nonexistence" that the law is not equipped to make, quoting Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 412 (1978).  Finally, the state claims that the trial court improperly relied on the testimony of Dr. McMeeking, the plaintiff's expert, in concluding that the donor sperm used in the IUI procedure caused the CMV infections to Jean-Marie, Joshua and Shay.  It asserts that Dr. McMeeking's causation testimony should not have been admitted because it was unsupported by a valid scientific methodology and was based on unproven, speculative factual assumptions.