Chapter 9 - THE CLINIC CASE
We sued.
Not for a fantasy fortune.
For violations arising from unauthorized reproductive substitution, lack of informed consent, negligence, and related harms subject to applicable law.
The clinic itself no longer operated.
But successor entities, insurers, archived corporate structures, and Mercer’s estate became involved.
The case was complicated.
Statutes of limitation were contested because we discovered the conduct years later.
Attorneys argued when we reasonably could have known.
The DNA test date became critical.
The court allowed significant claims to proceed.
Steven’s testimony mattered.
Carol’s testimony mattered.
Richard’s donor authorization mattered.
Our absence of recipient consent mattered most.
There was no signed document authorizing use of donor sperm.
None.
The defense did not seriously argue we knowingly selected Richard.
Instead, it argued Mercer exceeded whatever anyone expected and that liability should be apportioned accordingly.
That was more realistic.
Dr. Mercer had committed the central medical violation.
Richard had created the opportunity and remained silent after discovering the result.
Margaret encouraged bloodline preservation and helped conceal the truth.
But neither parent had physically performed the substitution.
Legal responsibility differed.
The settlement negotiations reflected those distinctions.
We also reported the historical conduct to relevant medical regulators, though Mercer was deceased and the clinic closed.
The goal was not theatrical punishment of a dead doctor.
May you like
It was documentation.
Systems learn only when failures enter the record.
