In a case of first impression, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals has held that a woman who terminated her high-risk pregnancy after her physician negligently failed to perform a tubal ligation during a prior high-risk delivery cannot recover damages for mental pain and suffering.
Sheri M. Puffer, M.D. and Women’s Health Services Arlington, PLLC v. Candace Williams (No. 02-25-00244-CV; April 23, 2026) arose from the failure of a physician to perform a tubal ligation at the time Plaintiff’s twins were delivered by C-section, as the parties had agreed. Defendants did not notify Plaintiff of this fact, and Plaintiff became pregnant again. As was the case for her prior pregnancy, the new one was considered high risk. Plaintiff opted for an abortion. Plaintiff sued Defendants for medical malpractice, seeking noneconomic damages for her pregnancy-related mental anguish, specifically her decision to have an abortion. She further sought punitive damages against the physician. The jury awarded $250,000 in actuals and $100,000 in punis. Defendants appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth, the court of appeals reversed and rendered. In Noe v. Velasco, 690 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2024), SCOTX held that a mother could not recover damages for mental pain and anguish of a negligently caused pregancy because pregnancy is “inseperable from[] bringing about the child’s life,” and “Texas law does not regard a healthy child as an injury.” But the question of first impression in this case was “whether this rule still applies when the unplanned pregnancy does not result in a ‘healthy child,” [but] when the mother has an abortion rather than carrying the pregnancy to term.”
Plaintiff argued that her mental anguish resulted from “the loss of pregnancy,” not giving birth to an unplanned child. The court didn’t buy that argument. First, she didn’t seek compensation for the loss of a pregnancy but for alleged anguish in having to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Though this was a painful decision, the court acknowledged, “such difficult decisions are inherent in pregnancy itself; they are among the many ‘costs’ that ‘[p]regnancy … undoubtedly impose[s] on the mother.’” And under Noe, “a mother cannot recover for the noneconomic hardships inherent in pregnancy—even when those hardships include the agonizing decision to have an abortion rather than carrying the pregnancy to term.” Plaintiff’s claim thus failed as a matter of law, and the court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Defendants.
