Johnston v. Elkins, No. 60079

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
• Writing for the Court: MILLER
• Citation: 736 P.2d 935,241 Kan. 407
• Docket Number: No. 60079
• Decision Date: 01 May 1987
• Parties: Stanley C. JOHNSTON and Mary A. Johnston, Appellants, v. Robert L. ELKINS, M.D., and Community Group Health Plan, Appellees.

Page 935

736 P.2d 935 241 Kan. 407 Stanley C. JOHNSTON and Mary A. Johnston, Appellants,
v.
Robert L. ELKINS, M.D., and Community Group Health Plan, Appellees. No. 60079. Supreme Court of Kansas. May 1, 1987.

Page 936

Syllabus by the Court

In an action against a physician for negligence in post-surgical testing and advice, following an unsuccessful vasectomy, it is held: the action is recognized in this state; following Byrd v. Wesley Med. Center, 237 Kan. 215, 699 P.2d 459 (1985), the birth of a normal, healthy child is not a legal wrong for which damages may be recovered; and ordinarily, damages recoverable in the action cease at the time of the birth of a normal, healthy child.

Loren W. Moll, of Brown, Koralchik & Fingersh, of Overland Park, argued the cause, and James F. Davis, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellants.

Bruce Keplinger, of Payne & Jones, Chartered, of Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Robert L. Elkins.

Richard T. Merker, of Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown, and Enochs, Chartered, argued the cause, and Laura K. Simpson, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee Community Group Health Plan.

Page 937

MILLER, Justice:

The plaintiffs, Stanley C. Johnston and his wife Mary A. Johnston, appeal from the entry of summary judgment against them and in favor of the defendants, Robert L. Elkins, M.D., and Community Group Health Plan. Essentially, this is a malpractice action arising out of an unsuccessful bilateral vasectomy performed by Dr. Elkins on Mr. Johnston. Dr. Elkins tested Mr. Johnston after the surgery and informed him he was sterile. Thereafter, Mrs. Johnston became pregnant. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages incident to the pregnancy and childbirth. The issues are whether plaintiffs have asserted a valid cause of action, and if so, the extent of damages recoverable.

When summary judgment is challenged on appeal, we must review the record in the light most favorable to the party who defended against the motion for summary judgment. Werner v. [241 Kan. 408] Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289, 292-93, 710 P.2d 1250 (1985); Credit Union of Amer. v. Myers, 234 Kan. 773, Syl. p 1, 676 P.2d 99 (1984). With that rule in mind, we state the facts most favorable to the plaintiffs.

Dr. Elkins, a physician and surgeon, performed a vasectomy on Mr. Johnston on July 19, 1984. One month later, he examined a semen sample of Mr. Johnston and informed him that he was sterile as a result of the surgery. Dr. Elkins is an agent and employee of Community Group Health Plan d/b/a Prime Health. Prime Health's guidelines call for two post-operative semen examinations before a determination of the successfulness of the surgery may be made. Elkins informed the plaintiffs that he required only one test. Relying on Dr. Elkins' advice, plaintiffs stopped using contraceptives. Mrs. Johnston became pregnant in late September 1984, and a follow-up examination of Mr. Johnston's semen in October indicated the presence of sperm. On May 31, 1985, Mrs. Johnston gave birth to a normal, healthy baby, the couple's fifth child. On July 15, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Johnston commenced this action. They alleged various acts of negligence, all arising out of the acts, advice, and post-surgical testing by Dr. Elkins. They alleged that defendants' negligence caused them physical and emotional stress, health care expenses, and pain and suffering associated with pregnancy and childbirth. They sought damages of one million dollars.

Prime Health moved for summary judgment, contending that Dr. Elkins was an independent contractor, not Prime Health's agent or employee. Dr. Elkins also moved for summary judgment, claiming that due to the fact that the child was normal and healthy, the plaintiffs are without a legal cause of action in this state. The trial judge sustained both of the motions for summary judgment on the ground that wrongful pregnancy does not constitute a valid cause of action in Kansas. The judge recognized that Prime Health did not move for summary judgment on that particular ground, but characterized the ruling as to that defendant as a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If the action fails against Dr. Elkins, then even if there is an agency relationship, it must fail against Prime Health.

The issue before us is whether we recognize this cause of action, however it be labeled, and if so, then the extent of the recoverable damages.

[241 Kan. 409] We have recently decided two cases which bear upon the issues raised here, and we shall discuss those opinions briefly. In Byrd v. Wesley Med. Center, 237 Kan. 215, 699 P.2d 459 (1985), the plaintiff mother became pregnant and gave birth to a normal, healthy child after an obviously unsuccessful tubal ligation had been performed upon her for the purpose of preventing her from having any more children. She sued the hospital where the unsuccessful sterilization procedure was performed, and she sought damages, including the cost of rearing her child to majority. The sole issue before us in Byrd was stated in the first paragraph of the opinion as follows:

"When a normal, healthy child is born to a mother upon whom an unsuccessful sterilization procedure has been performed, are the costs of rearing and educating the child items of damage which

Page 938

are recoverable in a medical negligence action? That is the primary question posed in this proceeding."

We were careful to point out in Byrd that we were not concerned with ordinary damages arising from a claim of medical malpractice in a performance of a sterilization operation--the expense of the unsuccessful operation, the pain and suffering of the patient, any medical complications caused by the unsuccessful surgery, or by the pregnancy, the cost of delivery, lost wages, or loss of consortium.

We carefully considered the views expressed in the opinions of courts of other jurisdictions dealing with the problem, and adopted the majority rule: In a...