Action Allowed On Down’s Syndrome Baby


This New York medical malpractice action was brought for a baby with Down’s Syndrome, for the extraordinary expenses of raising the child. (An action for “wrongful life” is not allowed on grounds of public policy.)

Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the existence of Medicaid to pay for the child’s care. The Appellate Division, First Department, said no way:

[T]he availability of Medicaid should not operate to preclude the recovery against the tortfeasor any more than the availability of health insurance under similar circumstances. We noted as well that such cost should not be borne as a public expense where judgment may be recovered against the culpable party.

The case is Mercado v Institute for Urban Family Health.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Bush: Bad Companies Should Be Allowed To Fail
  2. FindLaw in Class Action?
  3. Michael Jackson’s Mom To Start Wrongful Death Action Against Concert Promoter?
  4. NY Court of Appeals Urges Legislative Action On Insurance Issues (Updated)
  5. Abuse of Process: Blogger, Unrelated to Action, Hit With Subpoena

Tags:

April 30, 2007 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.