Can parents sue for emotional distress when the wrong sperm donor is used in fertility treatment? Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Harnicher v. University of Utah Medical Center provides important guidance on the requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, particularly in the medical malpractice context.

Background and Facts

David and Stephanie Harnicher sought fertility treatment after unsuccessful artificial insemination attempts. The clinic recommended in vitro fertilization using a mixture of David’s sperm and donor sperm, with the understanding that the parents would never know which sperm fertilized the ova. The Harnichers carefully selected donor #183 based on his physical resemblance to David and matching blood type. However, the clinic mistakenly used sperm from donor #83 instead. The error was discovered when one of the triplets became ill and blood tests revealed the children could not be David’s or donor #183’s biological offspring.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on whether the Harnichers could establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under section 313 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which requires “illness or bodily harm.” The plaintiffs argued that their diagnosed mental illness should be sufficient to support their claim, even without physical manifestations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied the correctness standard to review the trial court’s legal conclusions. The Court found that the Harnichers’ deposition testimony, where they denied suffering bodily harm, could not be contradicted by a subsequent expert affidavit without adequate explanation. Under the Webster v. Sill rule, parties cannot create factual disputes through affidavits that contradict their clear deposition positions. Additionally, the Court determined that the circumstances—having three healthy children who simply didn’t match the selected donor—would not cause severe emotional distress that “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with.”

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of consistent testimony throughout litigation. Practitioners should carefully prepare clients for depositions in emotional distress cases, ensuring they understand the legal requirements for their claims. The decision also highlights Utah’s restrictive approach to negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, requiring either demonstrable physical symptoms or mental illness severe enough that a reasonable person could not cope with the circumstances.