In Sheppard-Mobley v King (4 NY3d 627 [2005]), as the result of an ineffective chemical abortion, an infant was born alive, but with severe impairments resulting from the chemicals that had been administered to the mother. The mother had a claim for a negligently administered abortion drug, while the infant had a claim for injuries he sustained while in utero from the abortion drug. The infant's claims existed only because the fetus was not, indeed, aborted, which would be a necessary element of the parents' claims that but for the negligence of the defendants, the fetus would have been aborted. The Court held that Broadnax v Gonzalez did not apply because "a child born alive may bring a medical malpractice action for physical injuries inflicted in the womb" (id. at 637, 830 NE2d 301). However, the plaintiff mother was permitted to proceed only to the extent that she sought damages for emotional harm that she had suffered as a result of an injury "independent of the birth" (id. at 638).