Opinion ID: 3149548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rh-Sensitization as a Present Physical Injury

Text: - 10 - Although several federal and state courts have already recognized the viability of such a claim, the question of whether Rh-sensitization qualifies as a compensable injury is a matter of first impression in Tennessee. The record in this case includes conflicting affidavits and deposition testimony from medical experts as to whether Mrs. Rye has suffered a compensable physical injury in the form of Rh-sensitization, irrespective of any future medical expenses related to future pregnancies or blood transfusions. My colleagues, however, have narrowed the scope of this issue to the hypothetical, determining that “even [if] Mrs. Rye‟s Rh-sensitization amounts to a physical injury, the dispositive question is . . . whether Mrs. Rye is reasonably certain to sustain damages for future medical expenses as a result of her Rh-sensitization.”13 Focusing only upon future medical expenses and prospective harm to Mrs. Rye, the majority answers this question in the negative and, therefore, grants summary judgment. I cannot agree. In my view, this Court, as federal courts and the courts of other states have done, should recognize the cause of action, and a jury should be permitted to resolve the disputed issue of whether Mrs. Rye has a compensable physical injury as a result of her altered blood status and decreased ability to bear children without serious medical complications—an irreversible condition from which Mrs. Rye would not suffer but for the failure of the Defendants to administer a timely RhoGAM injection. Other jurisdictions have already considered whether this condition qualifies as an injury justifying the recovery of physical damages. In Kenyon v. Hammer, for example, Sharon Kenyon filed a medical malpractice action against a physician who had failed to administer a necessary RhoGAM injection after the birth of her first child in 1972. 688 P.2d 961, 963 (Ariz. 1984). After the trial court granted summary judgment for the physician, Mrs. Kenyon argued on appeal that her injury did not arise—and, therefore, did not trigger the applicable statute of limitations—until the conception of her second child, who “was stillborn [in 1978] as a result of the destruction of its blood cells by [Mrs. Kenyon‟s] Rh antibodies.” Id. at 963-64, 967. The Arizona Supreme Court recognized the cause of action but held that Mrs. Kenyon had sustained her injury in 1972 and, therefore, her claim was barred by the statute of limitations: 13 The majority insists that it has not foreclosed the possibility of a claim based on Rhsensitization as a present physical injury, under certain circumstances, because it is “assuming for purposes of this appeal that Rh-sensitization may qualify as a compensable injury so long as damages are proven to a reasonable certainty.” Nowhere in the majority‟s analysis, however, is there a discussion of presently existing damages in the form of an altered bodily status or a decreased ability to bear children. Instead, the majority focuses solely on “whether Mrs. Rye is reasonably certain to sustain damages for future medical expenses as a result of her Rh-sensitization.” (Emphasis added.) - 11 - When her doctor failed to administer RhoGAM within seventy-two hours of the birth of her first child, Mrs. Kenyon’s physical condition changed for the worse because her ability to bear other children was significantly impaired. She became more susceptible to just those problems which later occurred in the case at bench. If the [defendant] had realized the error four days after the birth of the first child . . . , he would have been bound to advise Mrs. Kenyon of the error and to have warned her of the risk of future pregnancy. Greater susceptibility to physical harm has been recognized as an element of damage in Arizona. Certainly, if Mrs. Kenyon had known of her condition and consulted counsel shortly after the birth of her first child, an action could have been brought to recover damages for the decreased ability to bear children or increased risk of fetal fatality. That decreased ability or increased susceptibility is damage which will sustain a cause of action in tort. Id. at 967 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also DeStories v. City of Phoenix, 744 P.2d 705, 709 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (“Mrs. Kenyon‟s „greater susceptibility‟ was an identifiable, fully developed, present medical condition.”). Likewise, in Harms v. Laboratory Corp. of America, the plaintiff‟s Rh-sensitization injury was described as follows: [Ms.] Harms suffers from Rh sensitization. Whether this condition causes her actual physical pain and suffering, [she] has been permanently altered by this sensitization. . . . Thus, the court disagrees with Labcorp’s characterization that [she] has not suffered a present physical injury. . . . While injuries to a fetus—or emotional injuries suffered by [Ms.] Harms as a result of those injuries to a fetus—may not be recoverable at this time, the court finds that [Ms.] Harms may still be entitled to recovery on injury—either physical or emotional—to herself. 155 F. Supp. 2d 891, 910 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (emphasis added); see also Harris v. Brush Wellman Inc., No. 1:04cv598HSO-RHW, 2007 WL 5960181, at  (S.D. Miss. Oct. 30, 2007) (citing the holding in Harms that a “plaintiff suffering from Rh sensitization . . . has an actual injury regardless of the absence of current physical symptoms”); Alberg v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., No. 98-CV-2006, 2000 WL 306701, at  (N.D.N.Y. - 12 - Mar. 24, 2000) (describing Rh-sensitization as an irreversible, undesired change in a person‟s physiology that “was designed to be prevented by RhoGam”).14 In this instance, Mrs. Rye now suffers from Rh-sensitization as a result of the Defendants‟ negligent failure to administer a timely RhoGAM injection. Although the Defendants contend that Rh-sensitization is not a compensable injury, the Ryes have properly asserted this condition as a present physical injury in the form of an altered bodily status, despite the lack of current physical symptoms. The Ryes further contend that impairment to a woman‟s childbearing capability should be a recognized element of damages. As indicated, other jurisdictions have acknowledged the cause of action advanced by the Ryes and have recognized Rh-sensitization as a physical injury, entitling a claimant to recover for both physical and emotional damages if a claim is filed within the statute of limitations. In this instance, both the trial court and Court of Appeals recognized the viability of this claim. I agree. In my view, summary judgment for the Defendants is inappropriate pursuant to either the Celotex/federal standard or the Byrd/Hannan standard.