Utah Supreme Court
Does the Utah Wrongful Life Act violate constitutional guarantees? Wood v. University of Utah Medical Center Explained
Summary
Parents sued University of Utah Medical Center claiming negligent genetic counseling resulted in birth of child with Down syndrome when they would have aborted if properly informed. The district court dismissed all claims as barred by the Utah Wrongful Life Act, which prohibits causes of action based on claims that but for defendant’s act or omission, a person would have been aborted rather than born.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court in Wood v. University of Utah Medical Center addressed the constitutionality of the Utah Wrongful Life Act, which prohibits lawsuits claiming that but for a healthcare provider’s negligence, a child would have been aborted rather than born alive.
Background and Facts
Marie Wood and Terry Borman sought genetic counseling during pregnancy due to Marie’s age and risk of genetic disorders. The Medical Center allegedly performed tests but failed to timely inform plaintiffs of results indicating an 85% probability their child would have Down syndrome. When finally informed, doctors downplayed the risk as likely false positives. Plaintiffs decided to continue the pregnancy, and their daughter was born with Down syndrome. They sued for wrongful birth, claiming they would have terminated the pregnancy if properly informed.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the Utah Wrongful Life Act violates the Open Courts Clause (Utah Constitution Article I, Section 11), Due Process, or Equal Protection guarantees. Plaintiffs argued the Act eliminated their remedy for medical malpractice without providing alternatives and unduly burdened the constitutional right to abortion by insulating doctors from liability for withholding information.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Berry test for Open Courts challenges, first determining whether the Act abrogated an existing remedy. Because Utah had never explicitly recognized wrongful birth as a distinct cause of action in 1983 when the Act was passed, the court found no existing remedy was eliminated. The Act therefore satisfied the first Berry prong without needing alternative remedies.
On Due Process grounds, the court applied Casey’s “undue burden” test, concluding the Act does not place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions. While acknowledging the Act might create a “safe harbor” for some doctors, the court found this too tenuous to constitute an undue burden on abortion access.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly impacts medical malpractice practice in reproductive health contexts. The ruling effectively immunizes healthcare providers from certain negligence claims related to genetic counseling and prenatal testing when the alleged harm involves birth of a disabled child that might otherwise have been terminated.
Case Details
Case Name
Wood v. University of Utah Medical Center
Citation
2002 UT 134
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20000827
Date Decided
December 31, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Utah Wrongful Life Act constitutionally prohibits wrongful birth claims without violating the Open Courts Clause, Due Process Clauses, or Equal Protection guarantees.
Standard of Review
Correctness for constitutional questions. The court presumes the legislation being challenged is constitutional and resolves any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality.
Practice Tip
When challenging statutes under the Open Courts Clause, focus on whether an existing legal remedy was actually abrogated rather than whether a specific cause of action label was previously recognized by Utah courts.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.