Heather Blouin v. Divya Koster, M.D.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Jason Blouin, individually and as father and next friend of Q.B., X.B., and D.B. along with Heather Blouin, individually (collectively, plaintiffs), appealed from a Superior Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Divya Koster, M.D. Joseph Singer, M.D. Patricia Lynch-Gadaleta, PA-C and Riverside Pediatrics, Inc. (collectively, pediatric defendants) and partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Karen L. McGoldrick, M.D. Santina L. Siena, M.D. and University OB-GYN, Inc. (collectively, obstetric defendants). Before this Court, the plaintiffs argued that: (1) the trial justice erroneously determined that the pediatric defendants did not owe a duty of care to Heather Blouin and Jason Blouin (collectively, plaintiff-parents) and (2) the trial justice erroneously determined that this Court's holding in Ho-Rath v. Corning Incorporated, 275 A.3d 100 (R.I. 2022) (Ho-Rath III), barred X.B.'s and D.B.'s individual claims. The Supreme Court concluded that, after reviewing the relevant case law and conducting the duty analysis set forth in Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp., 522 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1987), the trial justice did not err in determining that the pediatric defendants owed no legally cognizable duty to plaintiff-parents and that the wrongful-conception claims and derivative claims associated therewith failed as a result. As to the plaintiffs' second assignment of error, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in determining that this Court's opinion in Ho-Rath III required the dismissal of X.B. and D.B.'s individual claims. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Superior Court.