In Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992), the Court interpreted section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), the statute of repose governing medical malpractice claims, containing a four-year statute of repose from the date of the "incident" or "occurrence." Id. at 418. In 1976, the plaintiff gave birth to a baby with an abnormality. Id. at 417. At or before December 1978, a doctor told plaintiff that there was no genetic defect and that she could have another child without incident. Id. In December 1983, plaintiff gave birth to a second son who had a genetic abnormality. Id. Thereafter, plaintiff discovered that the first child had the same genetic deformities as the second child. Id. Plaintiff filed a claim of wrongful birth in December 1985. Id. The Court agreed that the statute of repose ran from the date the negligent advice was given, not from the date of birth of the second child. Id. at 418. Therefore, the Court held that plaintiff's claim was extinguished by the statute of repose since the second child was born more than four years after the negligent diagnosis. Id. at 424. The Court noted that the impact rule generally "is inapplicable to recognized torts in which damages often are predominately emotional." Kush, 616 So. 2d at 422. Also in Kush, the Court held that the emotional distress damages of parents who had endured the wrongful birth of their deformed child, after having been assured by medical personnel that they were not at risk of conceiving a deformed child, were not subject to proof under the impact rule. See id. at 423. The Court recognized that if the impact rule was inapplicable to emotional distress damages for torts such as defamation or invasion of privacy, in which the emotional distress of the victim was likely less severe, it should also be inapplicable to the more severe emotional distress of parents who had been assured that they were not at risk of bringing a deformed child into the world. See id. at 422-23.