Charron v. Amaral

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered whether a same-sex spouse could recover for loss of consortium when the couple was not legally married when the injured spouse’s medical malpractice claim accrued, but married after Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The court held that Goodridge operated prospectively and did not retroactively confer marital status or consortium rights for the period before the couple obtained a marriage license. The court answered the reported questions in the negative and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

Holdings

1. An adult loss-of-consortium claim requires a legally recognized marital relationship, and the claimant must have been married to the injured person when the personal-injury cause of action accrued; cohabitation, commitment, and other indicia of a family relationship do not substitute for marriage.
2. Goodridge does not operate retroactively to treat a same-sex couple as married before the couple obtained a marriage license or to confer past marital benefits, including loss-of-consortium rights, for an injury occurring before marriage.
3. A claimant may not recover loss-of-consortium damages merely by proving that the couple would have married but for the former prohibition on same-sex marriage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a same-sex spouse may pursue a loss-of-consortium claim when the couple was not married when the injured spouse's personal-injury cause of action accrued but later married after Goodridge.
2. Whether Goodridge's recognition of same-sex marriage and related marital rights applies retroactively to permit a loss-of-consortium claim based on a relationship that predated the marriage.
3. Whether a committed same-sex couple that would have married but for the former legal prohibition may recover loss-of-consortium damages despite lacking a marriage at the time of injury.

Disposition

affirmed