New York’s Highest Court Reaffirms Limits on Emotional Distress Claims After Birth Injuries (2025 Update)
- Reza Yassi
- Nov 10, 2025
- 4 min read
When something goes wrong during childbirth, the emotional pain can be unimaginable. Parents often want to know whether they can bring a lawsuit not only for the physical injuries that happened — but also for the emotional devastation that follows.
A recent decision from the New York Court of Appeals, SanMiguel v. Grimaldi (2025), the state’s highest court, helps answer that question — and it may not be what many parents expect.
In its 2025 decision, the Court made clear that New York law does not allow a mother to recover money for emotional distress alone when her baby is born alive, even if the baby later passes away, unless the mother herself suffered a physical injury during delivery.
What Happened in This Case
The case involved a mother who went into the hospital for labor induction. During the delivery, a medical procedure was attempted to assist with the birth, but complications arose. The baby was born alive but in critical condition and died a few days later.
The mother sued the medical providers, arguing that she had never consented to the specific procedure used during delivery. She didn’t claim any physical injuries to herself — only severe emotional trauma from what had happened to her baby.
Her lawyers brought the claim under something called “lack of informed consent” — a legal theory that says doctors must clearly explain the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a procedure before it’s done. If they don’t, and harm occurs, patients can sue.
What the Court Was Asked to Decide
The key question before the Court was:
Can a mother recover money for emotional distress if her child was born alive, but she herself was not physically injured — even if the doctor didn’t properly obtain her consent before performing a procedure?
The Court’s answer was no.
Why the Court Said No
The Court relied on two earlier cases that have shaped how New York handles these emotional-distress claims:
(2004): In this case, the Court said that when medical negligence causes a miscarriage or stillbirth, the mother can recover for the emotional trauma of losing her baby — even if she didn’t suffer a separate physical injury. That’s because the emotional pain in those cases is tied directly to the loss of the pregnancy itself.
Sheppard-Mobley v. King (2005): But the next year, the Court drew a line. It said that if the baby is born alive, the mother cannot recover for emotional distress unless she also experienced a physical injury. The reasoning was that once the child is born alive, the injury shifts from being to the mother to being to the child — and the law treats those separately.
In this new 2025 case, the Court said that same rule still applies — even if the mother’s claim is based on lack of informed consent.
What This Means for Parents and Families
Situation | What the Law Allows | Explanation |
The baby is stillborn or the pregnancy is lost due to malpractice | The mother can recover for her emotional distress. | This rule comes from Broadnax v. Gonzalez (2004), which recognized the emotional harm from losing a pregnancy as a direct injury. |
The baby is born alive, but the mother has no physical injury | The mother cannot recover for emotional distress alone. | This rule comes from Sheppard-Mobley v. King (2005) and was reaffirmed in 2025. The law treats the baby’s injury as separate from the mother’s. |
The baby is born alive and the mother also suffered physical injury (for example, internal tears or hemorrhage) | The mother can potentially recover for emotional distress as part of her overall injury. | Emotional damages can accompany physical injury under standard malpractice rules. |
Why the Court Won’t Expand Emotional-Distress Damages (At Least Not Yet)
The Court said it wasn’t willing to expand the law to allow emotional-only recovery for mothers after a live birth. It explained that changing those rules is something the Legislature, not the courts, should decide. The Court also noted that expanding emotional-damages claims could have wide-reaching effects on hospitals, doctors, and malpractice insurance costs across New York — issues better handled by lawmakers.
What “Lack of Informed Consent” Really Means
Many patients believe that if they weren’t properly informed about a procedure, that alone guarantees a right to sue. But in New York, lack of informed consent is considered a type of medical malpractice, not a separate kind of claim. That means the same limits apply — including the one about needing a physical injury to recover for emotional distress.
Lessons for Expecting Parents and Medical Providers
For families: If a baby is born alive, and the mother’s injury is only emotional, New York law does not currently allow her to recover for that distress alone. If the mother was physically injured during delivery, she may be able to recover for both physical and emotional harm. The child may still have separate legal claims for injuries caused by medical negligence.
For healthcare providers: This case reinforces the importance of clear, documented informed-consent discussions. Even though emotional-only claims are barred, poor communication still fuels litigation and distrust.
Looking Ahead
The Court left open the possibility that lawmakers could revisit this issue in the future. Advocates may push for legislation allowing mothers to recover for emotional trauma even when no physical injury occurs — especially in cases involving devastating loss after birth. For now, though, the rule is clear: In New York, a mother cannot recover money for emotional distress alone if her baby is born alive and she has no physical injuries.
In Plain Terms
To put it simply:
If your baby is born alive and you weren’t physically hurt, you can’t sue just for emotional suffering in New York.
If your baby is stillborn or you lost the pregnancy because of medical negligence, you can.
And if you were physically hurt during delivery, your emotional distress can be part of your damages.
That’s the law as it stands today — reaffirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in 2025.
Legal Disclaimer :
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is unique, and the outcome depends on its specific facts and circumstances. If you believe you may have a legal claim related to a birth injury or medical malpractice, you should consult directly with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
.png)