Minnesota Trial Court Reduces Damages Awarded In Wrongful Conception Medical Malpractice Case

In early May 2023, Plaintiffs served their Complaint bringing a claim for medical malpractice against Minnesota Urology P.A. (“MN Urology”). The Complaint alleged that malpractice resulted in Ms. Szlachtowski’s unplanned pregnancy and pled the right to recover various categories of “damages,” including the pain and suffering of pregnancy and delivery and the associated medical expenses; emotional distress; loss of consortium; and the costs of raising their fourth child.

Before trial, the parties reached a stipulation on several issues: that MN Urology was negligent when it incorrectly advised Mr. Szlachtowski that the results of his initial post-surgery testing were negative and that the negligence was a direct cause of the pregnancy resulting in Beau’s birth; that the medical care and expenses for Beau were reasonable and related to MN Urology’s negligence; and the pre-natal, labor and delivery, and post-natal medical care and expenses for Ms. Szlachtowski were reasonable and related to MN Urology’s negligence. The parties ultimately stipulated that these expenses totaled $62,773.59.

The jury returned a verdict on November 12, 2024 and awarded the Plaintiffs the following:

• $450,000.00 in emotional distress damages for Ms. Szlachtowski;
• $150,000.00 in emotional distress damages for Mr. Szlachtowski;
• $15,000.00 in loss of consortium damages for Ms. Szlachtowski;
• $15,000.00 in loss of consortium damages for Mr. Szlachtowski;
• $62,773.79 in past health care expenses (to which the parties had stipulated);
• $23,815.31 in past loss of earnings (to which the parties had stipulated).
• $35,320.24 in past child-rearing expenses (specifically excluding past health care expenses); and
• $386,156.76 in future child-rearing expenses until Beau reaches age 18.
• In response to a question on the special verdict form asking the jury to value the benefit Plaintiffs will derive from Beau over the course of their lifetimes, the jury answered “0.”

MN Urology moved for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur of the jury’s verdict.

The Court stated that a motion for a new trial based on insufficient damages may be granted when the evidence
demonstrates that the damage award could have resulted only from passion or prejudice. Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(e). To determine whether an award of damages is “within the bounds of reason,” the district court is to compare the verdict to the facts of the case.

The Court stated: “The Court finds that there was very little evidence introduced, if any, as to what benefit Beau will bring to his parents over their lifetimes, nor any argument about how the jury could value such benefit. And it was Minnesota Urology’s burden of proving any such amount of benefit … Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the
jury’s finding of zero for the benefit Beau will provide to his parents over their lifetimes was “perverse, not justified by the evidence, and contrary to law.” This part of the motion will be denied.”

However, “the Court will grant Defendant’s motion that it was error to allow [Mr.] Szlachtowski to seek emotional distress damages.”

With regard to Ms. Szlachtowski’s emotional distress damages, the Court stated: “The Defendant points out that the period of time during which Ms. Szlachtowski could claim she experienced emotional distress due to MN Urology’s error was only 12 months—from March 2023 when she learned she was pregnant until March 2024 when she had her last therapy appointment, six months after Beau’s birth. MN Urology points out that this represents $37,500 per month for emotional distress (i.e., $450,000 divided by 12 months). This calculation demonstrates to the Court that the award was excessive for emotional distress damages attendant with a relatively uncomplicated pregnancy and not uncommon physical effects from delivering a child … the Court is granting Defendant’s motion for a new trial on Question 1(a). The evidence would support an award of up to $120,000 or $10,000 per month. Alternatively, as an alternative to a new trial, Plaintiffs may consent to a remittitur of $120,000 with the judgment in this matter amended and entered accordingly.”

Furthermore, “The Court erred in allowing the jury to award “loss of consortium” damages to Ms. Szlachtowski. This error was grounded on the same mistaken framework as the Court’s error regarding the award of emotional distress damages to Mr. Szlachtowski. While he did suffer a wrong, one that can be described as the loss of the ability to determine whether he fathered additional children, the involuntary incurrence of child-rearing expenses, or the emotional injury to his marriage, it is not an injury for which loss of consortium can be awarded to his spouse.”

Therefore, the Court ordered as follows:

1. Defendant MN Urology’s motion for a new trial, judgment as a matter or law, or remittitur is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
2. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court erred in allowing the Mr. Szlachtowski to seek damages for emotional distress. Accordingly, the Court will reduce the judgment by $150,000.
3. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court erred in allowing Ms. Szlachtowski to seek damages for lack of consortium. Accordingly, the Court will reduce the judgment by $15,000.
4. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that the jury’s award for emotional distress damages to Ms. Szlachtowski was unreasonably excessive. A new trial on that issue will be scheduled unless Plaintiffs accept a remittitur reducing that portion of the verdict from $450,000 to $120,000.
5. Defendant’s motion is DENIED in all other respects.
6. The Plaintiff has 30 days from today to elect, via written filing, whether to have a new trial or to accept the Court’s remittitur of Ms. Szlachtowski’s emotional distress damages to $120,000.

Szlachtowski v. Minnesota Urology P.A., Hennepin County District Court, Court File No. 27-CV-23-10677.

If you or a loved one suffered a serious injury (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Minnesota or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Minnesota medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.

Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.