Pregnancy Claims Arising From Unsuccessful Vasectomies

Post-vasectomy fertilisation is an infrequent but possible occurrence. There are a range of causes, some natural and some by erroneous surgical procedure.

A doctor has a duty to their patient to carry out a successful vasectomy. A doctor also has a duty to warn their patient of the potential recognised risks of post vasectomy fertilisation.

Failure to do so is a breach of that duty and it may be possible to claim monetary damages in the civil courts for some of the foreseeable consequences arising from an unsuccessful or poorly informed procedure.

The following are established court guidelines for deciding unsuccessful vasectomy claims;

The general common law principle as established in McFarlane v Tayside HB (1999) states that a Claimant cannot recover damages for the costs of rearing a healthy child.
A mother can however, claim for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity during the pregnancy and childbirth.
In Rand & Rand v East Dorset HA (2000) the courts held that where the defendant's negligence had resulted in the birth of a disabled child, the Claimants could claim for all of the financial consequences flowing from it.
In Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2003) a disabled mother who gave birth to a healthy child was not entitled to claim for all of the financial consequences arising from the birth but was awarded £15,000 for the loss of choice to limit the size of her family.

The decision in Rees is significant in that it now entitles all parents who have undergone failed sterilisation, disabled or otherwise, to claim the award for loss of choice in addition to the pain, suffering and loss of amenity resulting from the labour

Metcalfes have experience in dealing with wrongful birth claims. Call Angelina Rigby on 0117 9290451 or email arigby@metcalfes.co.uk for more information.

This press release summarises the law on issues which we believe may be of interest to your business. It is not a comprehensive review of the subjects and accordingly is published without responsibility for loss occasioned to any person(s) acting or refraining from action as a result of information published