White woman sues sperm bank after she gets wrong color baby

[wilkeliza]

Yes it should. I just saw this on CNN. The woman who gave birth was interviewed and said that she was given the wrong sperm. She paid for sperm 330 and was given sperm 390 (I believe those were the numbers.) She had called to ask about getting more sperm from the same donor. When the sperm bank realized their error they told her they could no longer speak to her and hung up. She says that if they had continued to communicate with her and taken responsibility, they may not have gotten a lawyer and sued. They showed several pictures of the adorable bi-racial child and the parents seem to genuinely love her. But this is indeed a case of not being given what you paid for and it isn't cheap! Dawn

The sperm bank was claiming they refunded the cost of the sperm that took so wonder who is lying here.

 

[ncdj2013]

The woman is white and wanted a white donor and she didn't get it, give you a break why? I think the woman is well within her rights, she is white and so is her partner and they wanted a white child there is nothing wrong about that.

.

Agreed. She did not get what she paid for and that is wrong. Period.

 

[declansdad]

The sperm bank was claiming they refunded the cost of the sperm that took so wonder who is lying here.

Are you saying that because she got a refund all is good?

 

[wilkeliza]

Are you saying that because she got a refund all is good?

Oh no not at all. I was just responding to the report that the clinic hung up on them and said they can't discuss it any further. That doesn't add up with the refund of services story line.

I think these cases are always so hard. I think they should get damages because they have chosen to pay for therapy and know they will need therapy for their daughter later as well as moving for the 2nd time. However if their daughter finds out later it can make for issues for her since emotional damages have come into play.

 

[bcla]

I suspect they spent a great deal of time choosing a donor. Even if the donor was white, but not the one I selected, I'd sue. This isn't like the car they ordered came in the wrong color. I'm sure, being gay, that they realize that being different isn't always an easy path. Most of us don't want our children to experience a lot of hardships in life.

However, what would your damages be? By couching this in terms of racial intolerance, they're hoping to get more than just if it was a mixup where the donor wasn't the one they requested but was white.

 

[bcla]

This is of major concern to me. They want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else? so sue the clinic and if you win they have to go electronic with their record keeping.

For the people saying it isn't about raising a biracial child; they made it into that issue.

If I lived in the town I would sue her for insinuating that I am racist.

They sue for the medical mix-up? fine.

They sue because their daughter might encounter racism? I don't know if it was me and I had a biracial child that I "loved unconditionally" as they claim to and am in a town that is not racially diverse and my family is racist, I would pack my stuff and move to a place that will accept us.

The plaintiff in this case claims that if she gets a payout, that she would use it to move to another neighborhood that she feels meets her requirements for good schools and a more tolerant environment.

However, I find a lot of this lawsuit troublesome. First is that she's gone public about her perception that her family is intolerant and that her community is intolerant. If I were a neighbor, I'd be extremely ticked off at them for accusing myself and my neighbors of that. One of the township trustees of the township that includes Uniontown says that she's mistaken. She's also asking the sperm bank for damages relating to the intolerance of her family and her current community. I'd think that the people who know and work with her family members are now asking "Is this true?" She has just caused difficulties for many people by filing this lawsuit.

She also signed a form stating that she absolves the sperm bank of all consequential damages for how the child turns out. They in fact make no warranty about the accuracy of the information that the donor gives and that they don't specifically research a donor's background. For instance, what liability should they have if one of the donors has African ancestry, passes himself off as a white man, but then his genes pass on the sickle cell gene to the offspring produced from a sperm bank?

I certainly agree that they've screwed up the kid's future by being so public about this. If they truly believed that this was for the good of the child, they could have quietly moved to another community and left her name out of the news.

 

[wilkeliza]

The plaintiff in this case claims that if she gets a payout, that she would use it to move to another neighborhood that she feels meets her requirements for good schools and a more tolerant environment. However, I find a lot of this lawsuit troublesome. First is that she's gone public about her perception that her family is intolerant and that her community is intolerant. If I were a neighbor, I'd be extremely ticked off at them for accusing myself and my neighbors of that. One of the township trustees of the township that includes Uniontown says that she's mistaken. She's also asking the sperm bank for damages relating to the intolerance of her family and her current community. I'd think that the people who know and work with her family members are now asking "Is this true?" She has just caused difficulties for many people by filing this lawsuit. She also signed a form stating that she absolves the sperm bank of all consequential damages for how the child turns out. They in fact make no warranty about the accuracy of the information that the donor gives and that they don't specifically research a donor's background. For instance, what liability should they have if one of the donors has African ancestry, passes himself off as a white man, but then his genes pass on the sickle cell gene to the offspring produced from a sperm bank? I certainly agree that they've screwed up the kid's future by being so public about this. If they truly believed that this was for the good of the child, they could have quietly moved to another community and left her name out of the news.

The waiver you speak of is for things like autism, Down's syndrome, under development Eric not a clinical error.it is similar to what you sign when going in for surgery. This is like going in to have a your right leg amputated but instead they do the left.

The clinic admits the error. If they were smart they would have settled this before the couple was able to make it so public.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

The plaintiff in this case claims that if she gets a payout, that she would use it to move to another neighborhood that she feels meets her requirements for good schools and a more tolerant environment.

However, I find a lot of this lawsuit troublesome. First is that she's gone public about her perception that her family is intolerant and that her community is intolerant. If I were a neighbor, I'd be extremely ticked off at them for accusing myself and my neighbors of that. One of the township trustees of the township that includes Uniontown says that she's mistaken. She's also asking the sperm bank for damages relating to the intolerance of her family and her current community. I'd think that the people who know and work with her family members are now asking "Is this true?" She has just caused difficulties for many people by filing this lawsuit.

She also signed a form stating that she absolves the sperm bank of all consequential damages for how the child turns out. They in fact make no warranty about the accuracy of the information that the donor gives and that they don't specifically research a donor's background. For instance, what liability should they have if one of the donors has African ancestry, passes himself off as a white man, but then his genes pass on the sickle cell gene to the offspring produced from a sperm bank?

I certainly agree that they've screwed up the kid's future by being so public about this. If they truly believed that this was for the good of the child, they could have quietly moved to another community and left her name out of the news.

Regardless of the wisdom of suing the sperm bank and the impact on the psyche of her child and/or the town in which they live, based on the form you posted, if in fact it is what she signed and none of us knows that for certain, it appears that she signed a form absolving the sperm bank from liability for any outcome from the sperm SHE selected. The form specifically states that SHE and her partner are responsible for selecting the sperm, i.e. "Patient, and not Midwest Sperm Bank or Facility, has selected the donor of the specimens to be used for therapeutic insemination." She is alleging that the sperm bank substituted different sperm for her than what she selected and that it violated and voided the contract at that point and I suspect that her attorney will have no problem having any waiver of liability dismissed.

 

[Bluestars]

The lawsuit only asks for $50,000 in damages. The clinic should have settled before the woman went public. They made a huge error that impacted the lives of a child and her parents. $50,000 seems like a very small amount to pay for their mistake.

I don't think the woman should have gone public though. With the internet, this story will live on forever and may make the child feel like she was an unwanted mistake.

 

[mom2rtk]

Regardless of the wisdom of suing the sperm bank and the impact on the psyche of her child and/or the town in which they live, based on the form you posted, if in fact it is what she signed and none of us knows that for certain, it appears that she signed a form absolving the sperm bank from liability for any outcome from the sperm SHE selected. The form specifically states that SHE and her partner are responsible for selecting the sperm, i.e. "Patient, and not Midwest Sperm Bank or Facility, has selected the donor of the specimens to be used for therapeutic insemination." She is alleging that the sperm bank substituted different sperm for her than what she selected and that it violated and voided the contract at that point and I suspect that her attorney will have no problem having any waiver of liability dismissed.

Yep. I agree.

 

[wilkeliza]

The lawsuit only asks for $50,000 in damages. The clinic should have settled before the woman went public. They made a huge error that impacted the lives of a child and her parents. $50,000 seems like a very small amount to pay for their mistake. I don't think the woman should have gone public though. With the internet, this story will live on forever and may make the child feel like she was an unwanted mistake.

50,000 is just the minimum. It could go up in court.

 

[Bluestars]

50,000 is just the minimum. It could go up in court.

Which is another reason why the clinic should have settled, in my opinion.

 

[Gracie09]

Oh no not at all. I was just responding to the report that the clinic hung up on them and said they can't discuss it any further. That doesn't add up with the refund of services story line. I think these cases are always so hard. I think they should get damages because they have chosen to pay for therapy and know they will need therapy for their daughter later as well as moving for the 2nd time. However if their daughter finds out later it can make for issues for her since emotional damages have come into play.

Why. They probably paid with credit card and the clinic issued a refund without communicating with them. One thing has very little to do with the other. And the clinic only refunded them for the vials that took. What about the hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the vials that didn't take.

 

[Gracie09]

Regardless of the wisdom of suing the sperm bank and the impact on the psyche of her child and/or the town in which they live, based on the form you posted, if in fact it is what she signed and none of us knows that for certain, it appears that she signed a form absolving the sperm bank from liability for any outcome from the sperm SHE selected. The form specifically states that SHE and her partner are responsible for selecting the sperm, i.e. "Patient, and not Midwest Sperm Bank or Facility, has selected the donor of the specimens to be used for therapeutic insemination." She is alleging that the sperm bank substituted different sperm for her than what she selected and that it violated and voided the contract at that point and I suspect that her attorney will have no problem having any waiver of liability dismissed.

Exactly. My dd has neurological issues that cause developmental delays and learning problems and eventually she will probably have seizures. I can't go back to our sperm bank and sue because they provided the sperm and she wasn't "perfect" (although to me she is!). But if I found out that instead of the sperm I chose, they substituted a different vial, then I have a case because we had a contract for one set of vials and they sent another and as a result they failed to fulfill the contract.
Would I sue, I have no idea at this point. But it moot because of the extensive safeguards in place both at my sperm bank and my doctors office to insure the correct donor sperm goes to the correct patients.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Probably not, because she requested a white baby.

Why would she sue if she had received what she asked for?

Because she asked for a specific donor. If she was given a white baby, but wrong donor--the clinical error is exactly the same either way. And this error was found out before she knew the skin color of her baby since she was notified when she was 5 months pregnant.

 

[wilkeliza]

Why. They probably paid with credit card and the clinic issued a refund without communicating with them. One thing has very little to do with the other. And the clinic only refunded them for the vials that took. What about the hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the vials that didn't take.

If that is how they handled it sure. However I have to imagine in a complex situation they had to have at least told them about the refund.

 

[declansdad]

Oh no not at all. I was just responding to the report that the clinic hung up on them and said they can't discuss it any further. That doesn't add up with the refund of services story line.

I think these cases are always so hard. I think they should get damages because they have chosen to pay for therapy and know they will need therapy for their daughter later as well as moving for the 2nd time. However if their daughter finds out later it can make for issues for her since emotional damages have come into play.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[declansdad]

The plaintiff in this case claims that if she gets a payout, that she would use it to move to another neighborhood that she feels meets her requirements for good schools and a more tolerant environment.

However, I find a lot of this lawsuit troublesome. First is that she's gone public about her perception that her family is intolerant and that her community is intolerant. If I were a neighbor, I'd be extremely ticked off at them for accusing myself and my neighbors of that. One of the township trustees of the township that includes Uniontown says that she's mistaken. She's also asking the sperm bank for damages relating to the intolerance of her family and her current community. I'd think that the people who know and work with her family members are now asking "Is this true?" She has just caused difficulties for many people by filing this lawsuit.

She also signed a form stating that she absolves the sperm bank of all consequential damages for how the child turns out. They in fact make no warranty about the accuracy of the information that the donor gives and that they don't specifically research a donor's background. For instance, what liability should they have if one of the donors has African ancestry, passes himself off as a white man, but then his genes pass on the sickle cell gene to the offspring produced from a sperm bank?

I certainly agree that they've screwed up the kid's future by being so public about this. If they truly believed that this was for the good of the child, they could have quietly moved to another community and left her name out of the news.

 

[bcla]

Regardless of the wisdom of suing the sperm bank and the impact on the psyche of her child and/or the town in which they live, based on the form you posted, if in fact it is what she signed and none of us knows that for certain, it appears that she signed a form absolving the sperm bank from liability for any outcome from the sperm SHE selected. The form specifically states that SHE and her partner are responsible for selecting the sperm, i.e. "Patient, and not Midwest Sperm Bank or Facility, has selected the donor of the specimens to be used for therapeutic insemination." She is alleging that the sperm bank substituted different sperm for her than what she selected and that it violated and voided the contract at that point and I suspect that her attorney will have no problem having any waiver of liability dismissed.

I'd be surprised if she didn't sign it. You really think they have a standard patient consent form and she didn't sign it? They would have never released a "specimen" without it because it would open them to liability. It's on their website, and the form was created on Feb 5, 2013 using Microsoft Word 2007 - so it's not as if they added anything. You can open it in Adobe Reader and check the properties. I can also save it as a file on my computer with the date/time the file was last modified intact and that's the exact date.

The form had a catchall section on indeminty:

VII. INDEMNITY.
Patient hereby indemnifies Midwest Sperm Bank and any other laboratory which renders services to Midwest Sperm Bank with respect to the Specimens or the donor(s), and the agents, officers, directors and employees of all of these entities from and against all loss, liability, damage and expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) of any kind or nature which any of them may suffer or incur by reason of any claim by any party (including, without limitation, the claim of any child born as a result of therapeutic insemination with the Specimens, or the other relatives of any such child) which arises from, is connected with, or is in any way related to any of:

1. The Specimens and any therapeutic insemination in which they are used;
2. Performance or non-performance of any act to be performed (or not to be performed) by facility;​

What do you suppose this means? I interpret this as meaning that the patient agrees that they won't hold them liable for a mistake (non-performance).

If it ever gets to court, they're going to have a copy of this form and the plaintiff is going to be grilled on whether that's her signature and whether or not she understood that she was signing this.

 

[Tiggeroo]

I absolutely think they have a right to sue and we are given no reason to think the women are racist. If you order a blue car and are given a black one should you just say thank you the car is nice. You might love the black car. Perhaps it is a more expensive car. But you wanted the blue car. Additionally, black cars are more difficult to keep clean and will require extra work at the detailing shop. Once you are five months pregnant you are invested emotionally in that child. It also sounds as though they tried to work it out for some time before they realized this mistake was going to present more of a challenge then they planned. That sperm bank should have settled this any way they could before it became public. This is going to cost them a bundle.