In Broadnax v. Gonzalez (2 NY3d 148, 809 NE2d 645, 777 NYS2d 416 [2004]), the Court held that the medical malpractice resulting in a miscarriage or stillbirth of a fetus is violative of the duty of care owed to an expectant mother even in the absence of an independent physical injury to the mother. The Court explained that, in New York the law generally requires that a plaintiff sustain physical or economic injury to recover emotional distress damages. (Id. at 153.) In Broadnax, the Court noted that the rule in Tebbutt v. Virostek, 65 NY2d 931, 483 NE2d 1142, 493 NYS2d 1010 [1985] created a "peculiar result"--medical caregivers could be liable for a parent's emotional distress damages stemming from malpractice if the fetus survived, but were protected from liability for those damages in cases of miscarriage or stillbirth. (2 NY3d at 154.) Acting to correct this anomaly, the Court in Broadnax held that " medical malpractice resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth should be construed as a violation of a duty of care to the expectant mother, entitling her to damages for emotional distress" (at 155).