Megan and Steven Szlachtowski, an Excelsior, Minnesota, couple, thought they had completed their family planning and were surprised when they welcomed a healthy baby boy four years after Steven was told he had a successful vasectomy. The couple would go on to file a civil lawsuit for the “wrongful conception” and would win their case, receiving a $1.1 million judgment in their favor.
Their story, as reported in the Minnesota Star Tribune, includes a mix of medical negligence, emotional upheaval, and financial implications, leading to the landmark seven-figure jury award. Minnesota is one of a handful of states that allow such a lawsuit. However, a previous case from the Minnesota Supreme Court requires juries to consider an additional factor when calculating damages. The court not only required the jury to determine the cost of raising the child to his 18th birthday but also to calculate the value the child’s family would gain from the “aid, comfort and society” of the child through their lifetime. The jury, however, decided that the latter value was $0.
The couple’s lawyer, Julie Matonich, successfully argued that the couple was seeking damages so that they could give their unplanned child the same standard of living they had given their other planned children. Matonich explained, “They chose to have him. They love him as much as their other children.”
The lawsuit was prompted four years after Steven underwent a vasectomy at Minnesota Urology, believing it would prevent further pregnancies. However, a critical mistake occurred; a triage nurse informed him his post-vasectomy semen sample was negative when it wasn’t. As a result, the couple would go on to unintentionally conceive a healthy baby boy four years later.
While the couple argued in court that they love their child dearly, this unexpected pregnancy was not part of their family plan, prompting them to sue Minnesota Urology for the “wrongful conception.”
Although wrongful conception lawsuits in Minnesota are rare, they are legally viable. This case revolved around two key questions: How much should Minnesota Urology pay for the financial burden of raising the child, and should the emotional benefits of having a child offset those costs?
Minnesota law requires juries to consider the “aid, comfort, and society” a child brings when determining damages. This unique twist brought an added layer of complexity to an already contentious case.
The diverse jury included five women and three men. They deliberated over six days, weighing expert testimony from economists and forensic accountants on both sides.
Ultimately, the jury sided with the Szlachtowskis, awarding $1.1 million in damages which included $450,000 for Megan’s pain and suffering; $150,000 for Steven’s emotional distress, $86,588.90 for healthcare costs and lost wages and $386,156.76 for the cost of raising the child to age 18.
However, the jury calculated $0 for the emotional value the child might bring, rejecting Minnesota Urology’s argument that the child’s “aid, comfort, and society” should offset the damages. Ultimately, it appears the defense could not sway the jury regarding what such a dollar value would be and that it should be used to offset the damages for medical malpractice proven by the plaintiffs.
In her closing argument to the jury, the Szlachtowskis’ lawyer, Julie Matonich, asserted, “There is not a lot in this world that we get to control... but one of the things we can control is the number of children that we decide to have. That control was taken away from Mr. and Mrs. Szlachtowski through Minnesota Urology’s negligence.”
Attorneys for Minnesota Urology unsuccessfully argued their case, including when Steven took the witness stand to describe the emotional toll of discovering his wife was pregnant despite his vasectomy.
When Minnesota Urology’s attorney, Richard Thomas, highlighted the joys of parenthood, Steven rebutted, “That’s the ideal situation. I don’t think that’s guaranteed... You keep describing the ideal situation.”
The unquantifiable joys of raising a child and the undeniable financial burden were themes concurrently highlighted throughout the trial, themes that Minnesota Urology found did not successfully sway the jury in their favor.
Although cases like this are rare, they highlight the real consequences of medical negligence. Minnesota Urology eventually accepted fault, but they expressed their disappointment and shared they would be exploring their legal options.
The $1.1 million award may set a precedent for future wrongful conception cases, especially in states like Minnesota, where these claims are legally permissible.
