38 Years Later: Hospital Sued for Lifetime of Damages After Birth Switch

For legal professionals, this case presents a textbook intersection of medical negligence and the discovery rule. The plaintiffs' ability to bring a claim nearly four decades after the alleged error hinges on when the injury was — or reasonably could have been — discovered. The outcome will clarify the scope of hospital duty of care and the admissibility of consumer DNA evidence in proving causation.

In a case that underscores the profound and enduring consequences of hospital negligence, two men born on the same day in a small North Dakota hospital have filed suit after discovering through consumer DNA tests that they were switched at birth 38 years ago. Jeremy Morrison and Kyle Bylin were the only infants delivered at Unity Medical Center in Grafton, North Dakota, on January 26, 1988. According to the lawsuit filed in state court last week, they were accidentally given to each other’s biological families, a mistake that remained hidden until Bylin took an at‑home DNA test in a Christmas gift‑exchange game. That test matched him to a biological aunt, leading to Morrison’s subsequent testing, which confirmed the switch. The revelation upended both men’s lives, robbing them of their genetic identities and the relationships they believe they should have had. The suit accuses the hospital of negligence and seeks damages for emotional distress, loss of familial bonds, and the lifetime of opportunities forgone. While the complaint does not specify a dollar amount, legal observers expect claims to include compensation for psychological harm, the costs of genealogical investigations, and potentially punitive damages.

“

Jeremy Morrison and Kyle Bylin were the only infants delivered at Unity Medical Center in Grafton, North Dakota, on January 26, 1988.

This case sits at the intersection of tort law, medical accountability, and the evolving role of consumer genetics in uncovering historic wrongs. The core legal question is whether the hospital breached its duty of care in handling newborns. Given that only two infants were born that day, the mix‑up is difficult to explain as anything other than a failure in patient identification protocols — a lapse that may constitute negligence per se under state hospital licensing regulations. North Dakota law recognizes causes of action for medical negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, both of which are likely to form the backbone of the complaint. A critical threshold issue will be the statute of limitations, which generally requires medical malpractice claims to be brought within two years of the discovery of the injury. Here, the discovery occurred only recently through DNA test results, so the clock would start ticking from that point. Defendants may argue that the alleged injury actually began years ago, but courts in other jurisdictions have routinely applied the discovery rule to toll limitations periods in switched‑at‑birth cases.