Sheesh, don't you think it might be wiser to just contact a reputable lawyer referral service, such as a local bar association, rather than posting your pleas on a adult website?
This is a potential medical malpractice case:
Approximatley eighteen months ago, a friend of mine and his wife celebrated the birth of their second child.
Afterwards they decided that they would not have any more children. Consequently, the wife had her "tubes tied".
Supposedly, the procedure was performed correctly, and there were no complications. However, after recovering from the surgery, and abstaining from sex for the prescribed time, the wife became pregnant again!
The HMO (A very well known California HMO)refused any liability on the basis that they had done nothing wrong.
My friends have so far consulted three lawyers(Presumably ones who practice Med-Mal), and all three have refused to take the case agreeing with the HMO"s position that since the procedure was performed correctly there is no liability on the part of the HMO, or the Physicians.
Something does not seem right here.
I would appreciate an opinion, and a referal
Thank You.
I also would not take the case, no jury would give $$ for a case like this. Think about it. If they did not want the kid they could have had an abortion. If they still don't want it, give it up for adoption to someone who does. However, as a pure legal issue, you can consider the following which may, or may not apply.
No liability if child born healthy: A child whose conception was unwanted but who nevertheless was born healthy cannot sue for "wrongful life": No cognizable injury is sustained in simply being born, even into an undesirable family situation. [> Turpin v. Sortini, supra, 31 Cal.3d at 239, 182 Cal.Rptr. at 349]
It is immaterial whether the alleged medical negligence occurred before or after conception. [> Stills v. Gratton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 698, 705-706, 127 Cal.Rptr. 652, 656-657--no "wrongful life" liability for failure to perform successful abortion; > Foy v. Greenblott (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 1, 190 Cal.Rptr. 84--no "wrongful life" action in favor of healthy child born to incompetent mother who became pregnant while in mental health facility; see > Alexandria S. v. Pacific Fertility Med. Ctr., Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 110, 122-123, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 30-31--child conceived by artificial insemination had no claim against fertility clinic whose alleged failure to properly obtain consent of mother's husband allowed husband to disavow child support]
Compare--parents' "wrongful birth" cause of action: Parents may have a cause of action for "wrongful birth" against a medical professional whose negligence led to an undesired birth . . . even if the child is born healthy. Medical professionals clearly owe a duty to patients who consult them for the express purpose of avoiding parenthood. [> Custodio v. Bauer (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 303, 59 Cal.Rptr. 463--parents who produced healthy child stated "wrongful birth" cause of action resulting from negligently performed sterilization; > Stills v. Gratton, supra; > Foy v. Greenblott, supra]
Maybe they could sue their own parents for "wrongful birth?"
From the medical point of view if a procedure is done correctly or even to the best of one's ability without intent to harm or neglect, I am not sure if there is malpractise involved.
For example if a patient comes into the er in full cardiac arrest, everything is done correctly but the patient still dies, I don't believe there would be a case for malpractise just become the outcome was that the patient died.
Sheesh, don't you think it might be wiser to just contact a reputable lawyer referral service, such as a local bar association, rather than posting your pleas on a adult website?