Alicia (P) alleges that Ds received test results while her mother was pregnant that indicated a possibility that the fetus she was carrying was not developing normally, so that, if the pregnancy continued, the child (Alicia (P)) would be born with congenital abnormalities. Alicia (P) asserts that, because the pregnancy was not terminated, she was in fact born, and born with severe physical and neurological deficits. She claims that she will be 'forced to incur extraordinary medical and educational expenses throughout the course of her life,' for which Ds should be held liable. She suggests that Ps would have terminated the pregnancy had her parents been advised of the test results, so that she, Alicia (P), would not have been born and would never incur extraordinary medical and other costs. Ps sued Ds and Ds got the verdict. Ps appealed and it was affirmed. Ps appealed. Alicia (P) asserts that, because the pregnancy was not terminated, she was in fact born, and born with severe physical and neurological deficits. She claims that she will be 'forced to incur extraordinary medical and educational expenses throughout the course of her life,' for which Ds should be held liable. She claims that Ps would have terminated the pregnancy had they been advised of the test results, so that she, Alicia (P), would not have been born and would never incur extraordinary medical and other costs.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.