|
|
|
|
ADOPTION AGENCY HELD NOT LIABLE FOR MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF FOREIGN-BORN CHILD ADOPTED BY AMERICAN CLIENTWashington, Inc., No. 98-CV-737 (D.C. Dec. 9, 1999) An adoption center’s receipt of summary judgment was affirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, where there was no evidence that the adoption center knew, or reasonably should have known, of the serious medical problems of a Russian-born child adopted by the plaintiff. The baby after adoption was discovered to be carrying the hepatitis C virus and allegedly had fetal alcohol syndrome. The client sued the adoption center for breach of contract, wrongful adoption/malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent representation, and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. At the time of the adoption, Russian law prohibited foreign adoption of healthy Russian babies, so no baby available for adoption had a clean medical record. The client had had independent medical review of the available medical records of the child, and the client traveled to Russia to meet with the orphanage director, equipped with a list of medical questions to ask. However, the orphanage did not allow her to see or copy the child’s medical file. The child also underwent an immigration physical, which noted that the child had an enlarged liver, but at that time Russia did not have a test to determine if a person was infected with hepatitis C. The claims based on fetal alcohol syndrome were not included in the original complaint. The plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add those claims about a month after the close of discovery. The motion to amend was denied, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted about four months later. Both rulings were appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the rulings in reverse order. The Court noted that it was undisputed that none of the defendants withheld any medical information made available to them, and none was aware of the child’s exposure to Hepatitis C or her receipt of blood transfusions. The Court reasoned that the only actionable claim for breach would require proof that additional effort on the part of the adoption agency would have unearthed these facts. However, the Court held that given the plaintiff’s own in-person visit to the orphanage, equipped with medical advice as to additional questions to ask, the trial court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find that defendants would have had better success in obtaining the information. Concerning the motion to amend, the Court discussed five factors relevant to whether justice requires the grant of a motion to amend: (1) the number of requests to amend made by the movant; (2) the length of time the case has been pending; (3) bad faith or dilatory tactics on the part of the movant; (3) the merit of the proffered pleading; and (5) prejudice to the nonmoving party. Here, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court appropriately included in its calculus the apparent lack of merit in the amended complaint. The Court also noted that the proposed amendment, which would have required discovery to be reopened, would have prejudiced the defendants. Accordingly the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
