Judge drastically reduces $1.1 million jury award in ‘wrongful conception’ vasectomy lawsuit

The Hennepin County judge who oversaw a rare “wrongful conception” jury trial has ordered the $1.1 million award for damages be reduced by $495,000.

The damages awarded to Megan and Steven Szlachtowski stemmed from a medical malpractice lawsuit after Steven’s vasectomy results were read incorrectly by a nurse with Minnesota Urology and the family dealt with an unplanned pregnancy. The damages included the cost of raising the child to the age of 18 along with several awards for physical and emotional distress.

The jury was also asked to determine the benefit the child would bring to his parents over the course of their life. They put that number at $0.

Earlier this year, Minnesota Urology filed eight post-trial motions challenging the jury decision and seeking to reduce damages. In an order filed last month, Judge Bridget Sullivan denied five motions and granted three.

The largest reduction came from the $450,000 the jury awarded Megan for emotional distress from the unplanned pregnancy. Sullivan determined that number was excessive and cut it to $120,000. Last week, the Szlachtowskis notified the court that they will seek a new trial challenging that order.

Sullivan wrote there was a 12-month period where Megan could claim emotional distress — from when she found out she was pregnant to six months after giving birth — meaning the award amounted to $37,500 per month.

“The period of emotional distress was short,” Sullivan wrote, “and the physical aspects of the pregnancy and birth and aftereffects were not atypical.”

She added that while Megan dealt with health issues, there was no medical testimony that it was permanent, and Megan’s therapy appointments for emotional distress ended “after only a few short visits.”

While other cases of profound emotional distress have ended in high awards for damages, Sullivan did not believe this case reached that level.

A comparable value for appropriate damages, Sullivan wrote, could be found in the average compensation for surrogate motherhood in the United States, which is less than $100,000.

“Granted, in contrast with surrogate motherhood, the pregnancy in this case was unplanned and unforeseen, which naturally entails added distress,“ Sullivan wrote. ”On the other hand, unlike a surrogate mother, Ms. Szlachtowski did not have to bear the added distress of giving a newborn away.”

Two other reductions were based on court errors that resulted in the jury awarding $165,000 to the Szlachtowskis.

In reducing $150,000 in damages for Steven’s emotional distress, Sullivan said she had erred in allowing the family to seek those damages in the first place.

Sullivan had ruled that marriages or committed relationships have “a component of intimacy that goes beyond physical aspects,” which led her to rule that Steven was in the legally defined “zone-of-danger” where someone can experience emotional distress through negligence toward another person.

Because there was limited Minnesota caselaw around wrongful conception and nothing dealing with this particular issue, Sullivan looked to other states and found numerous cases where both partners were awarded damages.

In reversing her decision, Sullivan said she had overstepped her legal authority and her decision had instead expanded “the limits on emotional distress damages” that Minnesotans could seek in civil cases.

She said that determination was not hers to make and should be left to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

A similar analysis was used in her decision to reduce the $15,000 awarded to Megan for her loss of Steven’s companionship due to the unplanned pregnancy.

Richard Thomas, the lawyer representing Minnesota Urology, said he still struggles with the jury’s decision that the lifetime benefit of the child to its parents was $0. Minnesota Urology filed a motion that $0 was “perverse, not justified by the evidence, and contrary to law.”

Sullivan rejected that motion.

“I don’t agree there wasn’t significant evidence of value, I mean keep in mind it’s a child,” Thomas said. “The testimony from the Szlachtowskis is they love and value this child equally with their other children.”

Sullivan wrote the burden of proving the value of the child was on Minnesota Urology. She also highlighted that at closing arguments, Julie Matonich, the attorney for the Szlachtowskis, said nobody can predict the emotional benefit of a child.

“No one can say that a child is going to bring a parent these things over the course of their lifetime,” Matonich said. “No matter what, [the Szlachtowskis] will give to their kids, no matter what. But what they will get back, no one knows.”

Sullivan found that argument compelling.

“There was very little evidence introduced, if any, as to what benefit [the child] will bring to his parents over their lifetimes, nor any argument about how the jury could value such benefit,” Sullivan wrote.

Thomas said a new trial would focus specifically on the reduction in damages around Megan’s emotional distress but both sides can still appeal the case, once that is resolved.

“We haven’t made any decisions about that,” Thomas said of any appeal by Minnesota Urology.

Lawyers for the Szlachtowskis were unavailable for comment.