She was wrongly told by a doctor that she did not have the haemphilia gene and passed it on to her son. Photo / 123rf
She was wrongly told by a doctor that she did not have the haemphilia gene and passed it on to her son. Photo / 123rf
A mother who would have aborted her 'much loved' son had she been told he would be born badly disabled has won a record $17.45 million compensation payout for his 'wrongful birth.'
Omodele Meadows, 40, gave birth to her son Adejuwon, now six, in September 2011, but was horrified to discover that he suffered from an aggressive form of haemophilia and autism.
In 2006, four years before her pregnancy, Ms Meadows had gone to her local GP surgery asking to be tested for the haemophilia gene, after discovering that it was carried by another member of her family.
But she was mistakenly given the all-clear by a doctor after a blood test confirmed that she was not herself a haemophilia sufferer, the MailOnline reported.
Only after Adejuwon's birth did she undergo detailed genetic testing that confirmed her as a carrier of the rogue gene.
Ms Meadows went on to sue GP Dr Hafshah Khan, whose lawyers "admitted that, but for her negligence, Adejuwon would not have been born."
The doctor had not herself ordered the blood test, only giving Ms Meadows the results, and a judge said it "cannot have been easy" for her to admit liability.
But the court heard had Ms Meadows been referred for genetic testing in 2006 she would have been identified as a carrier before she became pregnant.
Lawyers for the GP agreed to pay Ms Meadows $2.7m in compensation for the additional costs of bringing up Adejuwon relating to his haemophilia.
But they refused to pay out a much larger sum to include the extra care costs relating to Adejuwon's autism.
Now, High Court judge, Mrs Justice Yip, has upheld the mother's claim in full, awarding her £9 million, a record payout in a wrongful birth claim.
The mother was awarded more than $17 million for the 'wrongful birth' of her son. Photo / Getty
The judge said that, as a result of the wrong test being carried out, Ms Meadows "was led to believe that any child she had would not have haemophilia."
Had it not been for the error, "Adejuwon would not have been born, because his mother would have discovered during her pregnancy that he was afflicted by haemophilia and so would have undergone a termination."
Ms Meadows had been alerted to the risk that she might be carrying the haemophilia gene when her nephew was born with the condition, the court heard.
The virulent strain of haemophilia afflicting the family caused 'repeated bleeds' and her nephew had to be 'constantly watched' to prevent even minor injuries.
The condition is further complicated in Adejuwon's case because his autism makes the haemophilia much more difficult to treat.
The GP's lawyers argued Ms Meadows was not entitled to compensation for the cost of bringing up an autistic child.
The condition was not linked to the doctor's negligence and it was merely 'bad luck' that Adejuwon was afflicted by it.
But, awarding Ms Meadows $17.45m, Mrs Justice Yip said Adejuwon would not have been born but for the defendant's negligence.
The judge added that Ms Meadows loves Adejuwon and had only brought the claim "to provide a better life for her son."
"I recognise that this case involves highly emotive matters," she said.
"It cannot be easy for any mother to contend bluntly that her child should not have been born.
"Her love for her son shone through from her written statements. She had specifically sought to avoid bringing a child with haemophilia into the world, knowing the suffering that condition causes.
"The fact that she says clearly that she would have terminated her pregnancy had she known the baby would have haemophilia is not the same at all as saying that Adejuwon is now an unwanted child.
"On the contrary, it appears that he is much loved and cared for. The burden of caring for him though is much greater than the burden of caring for a normal healthy child and extends far beyond purely financial cost.
"Although this is a claim for her loss, I do not doubt that the mother's primary motive in bringing this claim is to provide a better life for her son."
