The Bill Manser settlement with LabCorp resolved a 2015 federal lawsuit over a 1995 paternity test that wrongly named him as a child’s biological father and led to five years in prison for criminal nonsupport. Manser, along with Dylan and Elizabeth Sehr, sued Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in Missouri. After mediation on October 20, 2016, the parties reached a settlement, and Judge Ronnie L. White dismissed the case with prejudice on December 15, 2016. The dollar amount and terms were not made public.
The 1995 Test That Started It
Roche Biomedical Laboratories, which merged that same year with National Health Laboratories to form LabCorp, tested William Manser in 1995 and reported a 99.67% probability that he was the father of Dylan Sehr, born in 1993.1GovInfo. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 4:15CV1436 RLW The Circuit Court of Polk County, Missouri, ordered child support based on that result. When Manser fell behind, he was convicted of criminal nonsupport and served five years in prison.2SleuthSayers. Fertility Fraud
Elizabeth Sehr worked in a DNA lab when the sample was submitted. It was later alleged she either substituted another man’s DNA or falsified the paperwork.2SleuthSayers. Fertility Fraud
How the Error Came Out
In 2013, Dylan and Elizabeth Sehr appeared on Lauren Lake’s Paternity Court, which arranged new DNA testing. The result: a 0% probability that Manser was Dylan’s father. A second independent test reached the same conclusion.1GovInfo. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 4:15CV1436 RLW Nearly two decades after the original finding, the lab report was shown to be wrong.
The Lawsuit Against LabCorp
On August 10, 2015, Dylan Sehr, Elizabeth Sehr, and William Manser sued LabCorp in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County, Missouri. LabCorp removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on September 18, 2015, under diversity jurisdiction.3CaseMine. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 4:15CV1436 RLW
The nine-count complaint fell into three groups. Counts I–III alleged negligence in performing the 1995 test. Counts IV–VI invoked res ipsa loquitur, arguing that a correctly conducted test could not have identified the wrong man. Counts VII–IX alleged breach of contract for failing to deliver an accurate result. The negligence and res ipsa counts sought punitive damages.3CaseMine. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 4:15CV1436 RLW
LabCorp moved to dismiss. On June 23, 2016, Judge Ronnie L. White denied the motion to dismiss and a companion motion to strike, allowing every claim to proceed.1GovInfo. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 4:15CV1436 RLW
How the Case Settled
The case never went to trial. The parties agreed to mediation with neutral mediator Richard P. Sher. The mediation conference took place on October 20, 2016. An ADR Compliance Report filed the next day stated that the parties had “participated in good faith” and “achieved a settlement.”4CourtListener. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Docket
The plaintiffs filed a stipulation for dismissal on December 14, 2016. Judge White signed the Order of Dismissal the next day, closing the case with prejudice. Each party bore its own costs.4CourtListener. Sehr v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Docket The specific dollar figure and the private terms were not disclosed in the court record, which is standard for cases resolved through confidential mediation.
Why the Lawsuit Was the Only Real Path to Recovery
Missouri law gives a person in Manser’s position a way to undo a wrongful paternity judgment, but not a way to recover money already paid. Section 210.854, enacted in 2009, lets a court-ordered payor petition to set aside a paternity finding using new evidence or DNA testing that excludes them. A successful petition can vacate the judgment, wipe out arrearages, modify the birth certificate, and support expungement of a criminal nonsupport conviction tied to the child.5Missouri Revisor of Statutes. RSMo Section 210.854
What the statute does not do is create a right to get back child support or state debt already paid.5Missouri Revisor of Statutes. RSMo Section 210.854 For Manser, whose losses included years of payments and five years in prison, that limit meant the civil suit against LabCorp was one of the few avenues to any financial recovery.
LabCorp’s Record on Paternity Testing Errors
The Manser matter was not the only paternity testing problem reported at LabCorp. In a 2006 case documented by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a mother’s cheek swab was used in place of the child’s, producing a false exclusion, and LabCorp issued a corrected report a year later. The affected parents, Michael Patterson and Leslie Falcon, sued. LabCorp won the case but paid each plaintiff less than $10,000 in exchange for their agreement not to appeal.6Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Weak Oversight Allows Lab Failures to Put Patients at Risk
Records produced in that litigation showed that in 2007 and 2008 alone, LabCorp issued corrected reports for at least three other significant mix-ups affecting four children.6Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Weak Oversight Allows Lab Failures to Put Patients at Risk LabCorp, which processes about 500,000 specimens daily, has said it follows strict quality-control procedures.