The Connecticut Supreme Court recently tackled a nuanced legal issue in Suprynowicz v. Tohan: whether allegations involving a reproductive endocrinologist’s misconduct during IVF procedures should be classified as wrongful life claims or ordinary negligence. This decision provides key insights into Connecticut tort law and the fine line between these two claim types, offering guidance to personal injury attorneys navigating similar cases. 

Background: The Facts Behind Suprynowicz v. Tohan 

In Suprynowicz v. Tohan, Kayla Suprynowicz and Reilly Flaherty, two individuals who discovered through 23andMe genetic testing that they are half-siblings, brought claims against Narendra B. Tohan. Tohan, a reproductive endocrinologist, allegedly used his own sperm during IVF procedures with their mothers instead of the sperm from the men the plaintiffs believed to be their biological fathers. The plaintiffs claimed physical and emotional harm as a result of his actions. 

The Legal Debate: Wrongful Life or Ordinary Negligence?  

The plaintiffs labeled their claims as ordinary negligence. In response, the defendant moved to strike the claims, arguing that the claims were noncognizable wrongful life claims.  

The trial court agreed with the defendant and explained: 

‘‘The plaintiffs argue that their claims do not constitute claims for wrongful life because they are ‘styled as [negligence] counts.’ That distinction is lost on the court. In a wrongful life claim, a child alleges that, but for the negligence of a medical professional, the child would not have been conceived or born, and the child has suffered harm as a result of [his or her] birth. . . . This is precisely what the plaintiffs allege. Had the defendant not used his own sperm to inseminate the plaintiffs’ mothers, the plaintiffs would not have been born. . . . The plaintiffs’ claims, like other ‘wrongful life’ claims, present the paradox of [plaintiffs] alleging harm that could only have been avoided if they had never been born at all.’’ 

Ultimately, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the complaint. 

How the Connecticut Supreme Court Resolved the Issue 

On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court carefully analyzed whether these claims fit the definition of wrongful life or could be adjudicated as ordinary negligence. 

The Court, following its prior decision in Lynch v. State, 348 Conn. 478 (2024), concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims are ordinary negligence claims, rather than wrongful life claims because they arise from the defendant-doctor’s alleged negligence in using his own sperm to impregnate the plaintiffs’ mothers during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. The Connecticut Supreme Court in this Connecticut personal injury appeal reversed, in part, the decision of the trial court.  

What is a wrongful life claim? 

Wrongful life claims carry two distinct characteristics: (1) the defendant is not directly responsible for the injury to the child, and (2) there is an inherent difficulty in assessing damages—in the wrongful life context, to be put in the position the plaintiff would have been in without the defendant’s negligence would be to put the plaintiff in a position of nonexistence. 

According to the Connecticut Supreme Court, courts “have defined a wrongful life claim as one that is brought by or on behalf of an individual born with a congenital abnormality who asserts that, but for a physician’s failure to detect and educate the parents regarding the abnormality, the child’s mother would have terminated the pregnancy, and the child never would have been born or had to suffer the pain of his or her existence.” 

Application to Suprynowicz 

Applying that framework to Suprynowicz, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that the claims were not wrongful life claims. First, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant—by using his own sperm to impregnate their mothers—was directly responsible for the pregnancies and harm (e.g., mental anguish, physical injury, and compromised familial relations). Second, damages are calculable and do not require restoration to a state of nonbeing—plaintiffs seek compensation for injuries and losses that would have been prevented, had the defendant acted with due care.  

Practical Takeaways for Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys 

What this decision does not reach is almost more important to note than what it does reach. Although Connecticut has recognized claims of wrongful birth (i.e., claims raised by the parent(s), it has not yet addressed whether wrongful life claims are cognizable.  

Currently, the issue of whether a claim of wrongful life is legally cognizable in Connecticut remains unsettled.  

This decision reaffirms that claims arising from direct misconduct in medical procedures—such as unauthorized use of donor material—can and should be pursued under ordinary negligence. But attorneys should exercise caution in cases where wrongful life claims might be implicated and consider a dual-pleading strategy (wrongful life and ordinary negligence) to preserve all possible avenues of recovery. 

The Suprynowicz decision serves as an important reminder of the complexities involved in categorizing personal injury claims within Connecticut law. Although the cognizability of wrongful life claims remain unsettled, this case demonstrates the Court’s willingness to analyze claims within the framework of established negligence principles. For attorneys, careful pleading and an understanding of these nuances are critical when navigating similar cases. 

Read the full decision in Suprynowicz v. Tohan.  

If you are navigating complex personal injury claims in Connecticut or have questions about appellate strategy,
contact me to explore how I can help.